It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


Not really true. There are many peoples incorrect definition of socialism, based on other peoples agenda to confuse. Then there are peoples differing idea on how socialism should be implemented. There are also the high-school definitions, as in anything bad is socialism, or fascism.

You can't argue an economic system like socialism without a rock solid simple basic definition of the term. For that definition you have to go to the original meaning of the term, not what other people have interpreted it to mean years down the line. Otherwise you lose perspective and be confused. How socialism is implemented will be up to us, all of us, once we own the means of production.


Myth: Liberalism is socialism, and socialism is big government.

Fact: Liberals believe in private ownership of the means of production; socialists, public.

Summary

Modern American liberals are democratic capitalists. That is, they believe that private capitalist individuals should own and control the means of production, as long as they operate within the democratic law. By contrast, socialists believe that everyone should own and control the means of production. Socialism has been proposed in many forms. Perhaps the most popular form is social democracy, in which workers vote for their supervisors, company policy, and industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another form of socialism is anarcho-socialism, in which employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market, absent any centralized government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is not a necessary feature of socialism; only worker ownership of production is. Dictatorships can never be socialist, because workers do not own or control anything when a ruling elite is telling them what to do. For this reason, socialists reject the claim (made by the Soviet Union itself) that the Soviet Union was a socialist country. It was instead a brutal dictatorship over workers.


Socialism is simply 'the workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'. Any other definition or implementation, such as Marx, is simply the idea of that person not socialists in general. You shouldn't hate on socialism because you don't like how some people want to implement it. It's up to you how you want to run your life, not someone claiming authority.

[edit on 11/17/2009 by ANOK]




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Agreed.

Socialism is not government control. In fact, socialism would be very difficult and prone to perversion with a government.

It is also possible to be wealthy in a socialist society. Socialism is not against prosperity.

The 'socialism' we are seeing today is actually the expansion of government and the destruction of freedom. Expansion of government and destruction of freedom are the same thing, so my saying both is redundant.

Labor unions are not socialist. They are greedy control freaks that unleash the destructive power of government on the lives of others.

As I mentioned before, socialism must be voluntary, otherwise you just have tyrannical control over the means of production.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

Agreed.


Thank You!


Socialism is not government control. In fact, socialism would be very difficult and prone to perversion with a government.


Yes that is a massive misconception, obviously perpetuated by the state as it continually has to maintain it's justification. The PTB learned a long time ago that us 'peasants' won't stand by a let ourselves be exploited, so they had to convince society that they are a necessity for our safety and prosperity.


It is also possible to be wealthy in a socialist society. Socialism is not against prosperity.


Personally I think we could prosper in better ways than now. Such as free health care, free energy etc. Why should the minority prosper off of what we should ALL be entitled to, that is the resources for survival?


The 'socialism' we are seeing today is actually the expansion of government and the destruction of freedom. Expansion of government and destruction of freedom are the same thing, so my saying both is redundant.


Yeah it's definitely not socialism. I have yet to see the workers owning the means of production. Private ownership, of resources, is still alive and supported.


Labor unions are not socialist. They are greedy control freaks that unleash the destructive power of government on the lives of others.


Well originally the unions were a reaction to the capitalist system and it's exploitation of the workers. Without unions we would not have the 40 hour week, pay raises, workers rights, vacations, health insurance, an end to child labour etc.
The problem is whenever people are given authority they are bound to corrupt it, no man is immune to corruption. If we abolished private ownership of the means of production we wouldn't need unions.


As I mentioned before, socialism must be voluntary, otherwise you just have tyrannical control over the means of production.


Exactly. The system we live under now is not voluntary, you work or you starve, it's coercive. I have nothing against work, I just don't think it's fair for our labour to be profiting minority private owners. Just like people don't like their taxes paying for someone else's health care, for example. I see any difference.

Capitalism is a wasteful system. Profits come before people. Resources are squandered. Technology is suppressed. Resources kept artificially scarce. Workforces unmotivated. Change is stagnated. It's time to come out of the dark ages...



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Liberalism is a belief in the importance of personal freedom. Nothing more.


Couldn't be more false .

Liberalism is about getting the government to take care of your every need - which by definition leads to a major loss of personal freedoms.


Like in the case of "socialism", there are multiple meanings for the word "liberalism" depending on context and perspective. Please try to discuss on an issue only after agreeing on the definition of the vocabulary used to avoid this sort of semantic discussions as they are entirely pointless.


Originally posted by centurion1211

Political Correctness is an invention of the media. It is not limited to the left or the right. All political parties, media outlets, and public figureheads are guilty of propagating it.


Also couldn't be more false except maybe that it is an invention of the liberal media.

I challenge you to come forward with a conservative that believes political correctness is a good thing.


A paleo-conservative (a REAL conservative) would object to political correctness, but the GOP neo-cons (conservative by name, Trotskite by nature) support it.


Originally posted by ANOK
Not really true. There are many peoples incorrect definition of socialism, based on other peoples agenda to confuse. Then there are peoples differing idea on how socialism should be implemented. There are also the high-school definitions, as in anything bad is socialism, or fascism.


I'm referring to the definitions used by people who call themselves socialists. Only those definitions are relevant.


Originally posted by ANOK
You can't argue an economic system like socialism without a rock solid simple basic definition of the term. For that definition you have to go to the original meaning of the term, not what other people have interpreted it to mean years down the line.


That's why I'm doing. Unfortunately Communists, Nazis (National-Socialism was also called "German Socialism" by Nazi ideologists) and Social-Democrats all call themselves socialists and claim to be the only TRUE kind of socialists.


Originally posted by ANOK
Myth: Liberalism is socialism, and socialism is big government.

Fact: Liberals believe in private ownership of the means of production; socialists, public.


Americans tend to use the term "liberalism" as a general term for left wing ideologies. In Europe, the term is used with a different meaning. Hence the confusion.


Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is simply 'the workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'. Any other definition or implementation, such as Marx, is simply the idea of that person not socialists in general.


Tell that to all those social-democratic parties in Europe that call themselves "socialist".

[edit on 18-11-2009 by PC equals Newspeak]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by PC equals Newspeak
 


People, and governments, can call themselves what they want, it doesn't mean they are what they claim.

Hitler, as you mentioned, is a good example. Yes they used the term socialist in their name, but obviously socialist they were not. Only the right wing in America tries to make the claim Hitler was socialist because they don't want him associated with the right. He was a classic fascist based on the fascism of Mussolini. If you read some books, instead of relying on internet myths, you would understand not only that Hitler was not socialist but why he wasn't a socialist.

George Bush calls himself a Christian, do you believe that too?
Oh and BTW so did Hitler.
How about China and Russia calling themselves communist, when they are obviously dictatorships? Did any of those countries turn the means of production over to the workers?

You have to educate YOURSELF, not rely on what people in authority are telling you.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
People, and governments, can call themselves what they want, it doesn't mean they are what they claim.


Who else has the right to define socialism but self-proclaimed socialists?


Originally posted by ANOK
Hitler, as you mentioned, is a good example. Yes they used the term socialist in their name, but obviously socialist they were not.


They believed that class divisions were a human construct and that any ethno-cultural group (like the German people) had the right to be a sovereign nation, protecting its interests from foreigners and promoting the idea of being economically active to support the common good. They believed that class differences would be overcome by means of the egalitarian Hitler youth, Arbeitsfront and other "educational" organisations as they unite youth of many different social backgrounds in the pursuit of making what they believed to be a better world. They believed that all employees in a factory, whether on top or at the very bottom shared the same interests of generating wealth and prosperity and building a healthy corporation and thus united unions and employer organisations into a single national union that was to compromise between the needs of everyone involved in the company and hence prevent both exploitation and unnecessary strikes. They were the first in Europe to grant common laborers the oportunity to travel, own a car or engage in recreational sports or highbrow culture. etc. As such, I do believe we can consider them socialist from a certain perspective.


Originally posted by ANOK
He was a classic fascist based on the fascism of Mussolini.


There are some subtle differences between German National-Socialism and Italian fascism, but there are indeed also many similarities and there does seem to be some mutual inspiration.


Originally posted by ANOK
How about China and Russia calling themselves communist, when they are obviously dictatorships? Did any of those countries turn the means of production over to the workers?


Some would say Communist regimes are truely communist, but just haven't entered the last stages of the revolution yet as they got stuck somewhere in the middle due to the human condition...



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak
Who else has the right to define socialism but self-proclaimed socialists


If I invent a [insert name here] I have the right to define it. The self proclaimed users of [insert name here] cannot call themselves followers of [insert name here] if they don't follow my specification. That's the problem with the world. People tend to belive what they are told without any investigations and seem to miss any other voices that don't agree with their interpretations.

"Socialist" belongs to the invertors of socialism. Not the self proclaimed socialists.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by krzyspmac
"Socialist" belongs to the invertors of socialism. Not the self proclaimed socialists.


This is true and the 'version' of socialism I was trying to explain IS the original socialism, which was the workers reaction to capitalism and private ownership of the means of production.

NOT Marxism, that came much later and was only based on the socialism and Anarchism of the working classes in Europe, it was not the be all and end all of socialism.

Socialism belongs to the working classes, but it has been appropriated by middle class bourgeois, people who claim to be socialist while at the same time supporting private ownership of the means of production (capitalism).

The only true definition of socialism is 'The workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'. That is it, anything else that claims to be socialist is just personal opinion. Even if EVERY socialist supports something that something is not necessarily socialist. In the true meaning of the term the 'middle class' are the management, white collar workers. The working class are the working non-management. It has nothing to do with income per se, but your position in society. So socialism can really only belong to the working classes, not politicians or the middle and upper classes (owners).

Socialism has nothing to do with health care, or government hand-outs, sorry but that stuff is the result of capitalism and it's unfair distribution of resources.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak
Who else has the right to define socialism but self-proclaimed socialists?


OK using your logic I claim to be a tax collector and claim you owe me a billion dollars tax, I'll expect a check in the mail.

Sorry but that is so naive. Do you believe Bush when he says he's a Christian, or Ted Bundy when he says he's innocent?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I didn't know Mark disagreed with the Communist Manifesto. Also, I'm not sure I'd call him a charlatan. Can you expand on that?

Really, I don't know much about him. I'm reading a biography about him which is actually pretty funny. He was an odd mix, at times apparently hypocritical, but he made great sacrifices for his cause, and he was clearly a genius.

It's nice to see talk of Socialism on this board. Too few people here understand the term, and too many demonize it without have the faintest clue as to what it is.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The only true definition of socialism is 'The workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'


Says who? And isn't that also a definition of Communism. A lot of people would say Norway is socialist.

In the 1960's over 60% of the UK belonged to unions. Was that approaching socialism? Britain could have taken a very different path. Really, I can't see how it could have turned at worse than what the "free-market" capitalism of Thatcher and Blair have left the UK with.

Really, I think Britain was sold down the river when they privatized North Sea Oil. And that was under a labour govt.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
I didn't know Mark disagreed with the Communist Manifesto. Also, I'm not sure I'd call him a charlatan. Can you expand on that?


The Communist Manifesto was the work of Marx and Engels, commissioned by the Communist League which was a Marxist organization.

It was, and is not, a blueprint for socialism. Communism and socialism are not exclusive, they are independent systems, even though they share similar ideals as it does with Anarchism (which is traditionally socialist in nature, research the history). Some, including me, would argue that Anarchism is the only true socialism (workers, you and me, ownership of the resources we need for life and happiness). Thus you have Libertarian-Socialism (LibSoc), look it up.

OK I take back the charlatan comment lol, I just get tired of Marx always getting in the way of a discussion about socialism. I'm not a communist, nor a Marxist (not that there's anything wrong with that) but I'm a socialist, as in I believe in 'the workers ownership of the means of production and distribution'. Politically I'm an atheist, an Anarchist...I believe in the power of cooperation, not competition. I believe if we're freed of the chains of private ownership of resources (the reason we spend most of our time working for someone else just to survive), our real Human potential could be allowed to develop (instead of bank accounts).



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
Says who? And isn't that also a definition of Communism. A lot of people would say Norway is socialist.


Says who lol?

And a lot of people say France and Britain are socialist also, in fact Americans call everything that's not American socialist lol.

Well I hear Norway has a very popular 'socialist party' but I don't put too much faith in governments, as history has proven over and over again that they simply cannot be trusted. I'd call it more like capitalism light, with a lot of 'social' incentives to keep the peasants from revolting against their masters.

Communism is different to socialism as in socialism doesn't advocate societal communal ownership, just ownership of the means of production, industry, labour, by those that do the work. The place where you work would be a collective, where all the workers, equally and directly, benefit from their labour, as apposed to that gained by your labour first going to a private owner who then pays you an hourly wage. That's not communal ownership, it's more like just owning your own tools and workspace, and not having to work for someone at an hourly fixed wage because they are the only one with the tools. There are so many benefits of this system that are just too much to go into on a forum.


In the 1960's over 60% of the UK belonged to unions. Was that approaching socialism? Britain could have taken a very different path. Really, I can't see how it could have turned at worse than what the "free-market" capitalism of Thatcher and Blair have left the UK with.


No, unions are not socialism, unions are a reaction to private ownership and a system where the worker has no way to regress problems. There would be no need for unions if there was no private ownership. Just like there would be no 'socialised' health care. In fact in feudal times there was also no use for unions because the peasants had far more ways to regress problems with the 'land owners' (capitalists) than we do now. The expansion of Capitalism created that need.


Really, I think Britain was sold down the river when they privatized North Sea Oil. And that was under a labour govt.


Well the Labour party are not socialist they are capitalist/nationalist always have been, and yes privatization, or the private ownership of the means of production etc., is capitalism. Government ownership is Nationalism. Socialism is the workers ownership blah blah blah. It's the basics of economic systems.

Britain used to have a lot of nationalised industries that are now in private hands and look at the mess some of them are in (not saying nationalised is better, but a lot of the time private ownership is worse). Read 'Broken Rails' by Christian Wolmar, about the mess privatisation has made of the once great British rail industry.

[edit on 12/6/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I think your arbitrary definition of terms is a pointless waste of time. Like many left-wingers I have known, you seem to be over-concerned with theory. You say tamarto, I say toomato.

At the end of the day, it comes down to oligarchy and democracy. We live in oligarchies. There were some moves before and after WW1 & 2 towards democracy (probably as a result of the christian movement in the wealthy classes), but that has been reversed.

And repeatedly telling people to


Look it up.


smacks of arrogance. You appear to assume you know more than others. I like talking. I don't like being talked down to.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rizla
 


They are not arbitrary definitions, they are the basic definitions. The fact you don't understand that explains your, and a lot of other peoples, confusion.

Hmmm talking down to you was not my reason for saying 'look it up'. I could go on for pages explaining it to you, but it would be pointless because you don't seem to want to believe what I'm saying (why should you?), so please go look it up yourself, do your own research if you're really that interested, and you will see for yourself what I'm saying is right, or wrong, in which case you can come back with what you've found, not what you assume from being media educated on economy and politics.

You have taken an attitude of closed mindedness now because you've decided you don't like the tone of the messenger, probably because you don't know enough about the subject to offer a decent counter argument.

If you read my posts without the negative attitude towards them you will see they are factual and humorous...


Here are some other definitions of socialism for ya, but they say basically the same thing...


SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers [workers] possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

eng.anarchopedia.org...


Myth: Liberalism is socialism, and socialism is big government.

Fact: Liberals believe in private ownership of the means of production; socialists, public.

www.huppi.com...


Socialism refers to a set of related socio-economic systems and ideologies that seek to transfer ownership of the means of production and distribution to the working class...

rationalwiki.com...


from 1918

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best attainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.
o Clause IV (4) of the new Labour Party constitution adopted this year; written by Sydney Webb


BTW most dictionary definitions come from Marx, which is a VERSION of socialism, not socialism in it's original basic definition. It's just laziness to use Marx as the be all and end all of socialist thought, and people who know no better do this all the time.

[edit on 12/6/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Political Correctness is an invention of the media. It is not limited to the left or the right. All political parties, media outlets, and public figureheads are guilty of propagating it.


That point makes no sense- first it is an invention by the media, then you admit it does exist?

There is no doubt that the emergence of political correctness and multi culturalism is a result of (at least to a large degree), extreme left wing thinking and the belief that western society was horrific and needed to be changed (this was the trojan horse agenda as opposed to outside invasion)- the left wingers who held this view disgust me, spoilt brats, living in a society most people on earth could only dream of



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by drwizardphd
Political Correctness is an invention of the media. It is not limited to the left or the right. All political parties, media outlets, and public figureheads are guilty of propagating it.


That point makes no sense- first it is an invention by the media, then you admit it does exist?

There is no doubt that the emergence of political correctness and multi culturalism is a result of (at least to a large degree), extreme left wing thinking and the belief that western society was horrific and needed to be changed (this was the trojan horse agenda as opposed to outside invasion)- the left wingers who held this view disgust me, spoilt brats, living in a society most people on earth could only dream of


What is wrong with dreaming? And what is wrong about changing to a society where culture of all kinds is allowed and not discriminated against.
Is it because you lack culture of your own? The many varying cultures and ideas of this world is what makes it what it is. What do you want, everyone in the world to look and act like an 'American' (whatever that is, and who decided what that is?) eating burgers, packing heat, and being paranoid about everything we don't understand?

And how do you define 'political correctness' and why is it always attributed to the 'left'?


Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid-1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism. . . . What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism — by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents — they could discredit the whole political project. Hutton


The term was also used as a way to ignore having to actually do anything about racial, class and gender discrimination. Just change the terms to nicer ones and pretend everything is better. So you are right that it's wrong but please quit blaming the left for everything you disagree with.

People are so quick to pick up on media 'buzz words' and not really know what they mean, or where they came from.

Socialism, or Marxism, has nothing to do with 'political correctness'.

[edit on 12/7/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I came first across the term Frankfurt School on a talk about the EU and you could argue that it is a perfect example of what you can achieve when these principles are adhered to. The UK has also followed this school to the letter and the US almost seems way ahead of the rest of the world.

What has been a stunning revelation to me is not the methods as anyone that observers their life and that around you over the past 30years can see the destruction in every aspect of life and you don't need to be an academic to see that what you have been told about this subject is exactly that - What you have been told!

The reality however is what every one of us feel and know is just wrong. No the stunning rebalation to me is that the Global Elite plan actually has a name i.e. The Frankfurt School! (Although I know that this is the modern name as its been going on for 1000's of years under different guises)

The rulers NEVER change just their executives i.e. every government and their agencies the world over and where there are any that feel excluded from the Rulers plans then Religion (ALL) step in to fill the void but the same methods are employed to exactly the same aim of Rulers.

The PC culture is just another method of divide and rule; I've always wondered why certain words or topics are Taboo when every day we hear that we live in a society that allows free speech? No so apparently in democratic (Mob rule) Europe where you can be locked up and fined 1000’s for disagreeing with aspects of the Jewish holocaust but not the Russian or the ten times worse Chinese deaths? We’re not allowed to utter the (keeping to the forum rules) N…… word in any of its connotations even for the purposes of making a point and where as in the above Jewish example before you have a Frankfurt School label applied to your person and off the debate/discussion goes into the tail spin of brainwashed contrived emotional mudslinging.

Even on here once you start down a certain topic you get all the reactions from people that can't see that their thinking/reaction is based on brainwashing and conditioning. You see people labeled racist if they point out the flaws of Barack Obama or is it Barry Soetoro? Well then, I’m a rabid racist from what I can see of Barry and his Global Elite financiers or his USSR backers me thinks ‘HOPE’ is all you Americans are going to get out of this puppet and ‘Change’ is what you’ll have in your pockets as he allows the Fed to further enslave you! I spoke to people in the UK that would have voted for him just because he was black and when pressed they had to admit that this would have been by their own definition a racist act. They won't vote British National Party here because they are racist and yet the environment of hatred in the UK/US hasn't been a result of small political parties/groups that don't have any mandate it’s because of who has had the political agenda for, let’s just say, the past 50years! People forget who has had the power/money/opportunity to change every aspect of society here in the UK it hasn't been the BNP! No the blame for the slave existence in the UK/USA can only reside with your 2/3 political parties. How they have divided their people, slaughtered, made them homeless, denied them medical help, CHOICE economically destitute and stripped every ounce of self respect and self worth that we may have once possessed?

It is so obvious when you hear of the Frankfurt School why EVERY country in the grip of the World banks have implemented all of the FS agendas. It even explains the need for ’… ISIM's as a tool to divide and keep us at war mentally and emotionally as soon as one doesn't agree with any of the ISIM's. Hell, they have even implemented the notion that anyone not agreeing with the FS ploys are mentally unstable and have set up (even here in the UK) agencies that remove people to mental institutes for daring to e.g. question such nefarious Government pedophile cover-ups and have rolled out many medical/scientific/judicial/MSM puppets to give the necessary creditability to ensure the ridicule of ...... well people like me!

This is potentially a subject that is very complicated (another ploy) but you all know that none of this feels right and now you have a term for this dis-ease The Frankfurt School.


Why we are the way we are.

But most people on here hill prefer to chase UFO's, Star Gates etc than see what's happening to them?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join