Gorbachev Exposes Global Communist Environmentalism Conspiracy.

Originally posted by Someone336

Have you read the Manifesto? It doesn't call for complete power for a view, it calls for complete power of the proletariat, the entire working class. This is where I disagree with Marx, and agree with his chief rival, Bakunin: no one should have complete power at all. Marx and Bakunin did share a common goal: a stateless, classless world where the working class owns the means of production. They just differed on the means to get there. I don't agree with Marx, but I don't think he intended or anticipated a Stalin to occur.

I was indoctrinated as a child into accepting the Communist manifesto, and had to recite phrases from it, as well as the ideas of castro's regime.

Originally posted by Someone336
I don't recall him asking to give up individual freedom.

Yes he did. One of the basis of Communism is to give up individual freedom for the "common good of all". That in itself is the enslavement of everyone.

Originally posted by Someone336
They had different ideals on the core, defining goal on communism: the existence of the State. Without that goal, it isn't communism. It's something else entirely.

Trotsky was a Bolshevik revolutionary and also a Marxist theorist. He considered himself as a Bolshevik-Leninist. He was in favor of "proletariat internationalism" which is the idea to spread the "revolution" to all corners of the world.

He oposed Socialism in one country, or National Socialism, but that didn't make him any less of a true Socialist/Communist; and this is an idea that many Communists have had, and more so by today's Socialists/Communists.

He had some different ideals from Stalin, such as opposing the peace talks with Hitler, and he was an advocate of "fighting against the fascist Europeans". But he was a true Socialist/Communist by definition.


[edited for errors]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Someone336
...............
I wouldn't call them socialist, regardless of what Hitler said.

Ah, so just because you say it he was not a Socialist, despite the fact that he implemented Socialist programs in Germany, and the goals he set up are Socialist in nature.

A Little Secret About the Nazis

January 2002 -- They were left-wing socialists. Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with the modern left. Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist "exploitation" by capitalists -- particularly Jewish capitalists, of course. Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen. They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics. Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape, and the time has come to expose it.

Richard Poe sets the record straight:

Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was "socialist" and that its enemies were the "bourgeoisie" and the "plutocrats" (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.
Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, "On the Jewish Question," Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps.

The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets "internationalists" and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard "national" socialism as the scourge of humanity consider "international" socialism a benign or even superior form of government.
.

russp.org...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by TrueTruth
The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it."
.............

Again we go back to the fact that just because Socialists/Communists used money, and corporations it doesn't make them any less Socialists or Communists.


\\
Any, and every system needs money, and power to take control, even Socialist or Communist dictatorships.

I don't know what to tell you.

I guess you can choose to reject common definitions of things if you wish, or ignore historical evidence if you feel like it, but the facts are the facts.

The text you just cited only reports on what Hitler said about himself - not what he did. The only thing that matters in terms of evidence, is what he did.

Hitler wasn't a socialist, and he wasn't a communist. What he said in public speeches is meaningless. What he enacted as policy is what counts, and it's down the line authoritarian capitalism.

It's the same today in America (if a little more tame).



[edit on 10-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I am not sure I follow your logic. Isn't government supposed to work for the people? What difference does it make if its "big government", "small government" or "medium goverment"?

A government works primarily for one of three class of citizens:

1)wealthy individuals, corporations
2)middle class
3)poor

If it works for the wealthy and corporations its "right wing" and if it works for the middle class and poor its "left wing". Really simple in my opinion!

I remember in high school my teacher said there are three types of economic systems; 1)capitalism 2)socialism 3)communism

Problems arise when you leave economics and include other political aspects such as religion, birth control, gun control, minority rights, etc.

Hitler may have said he was a socialist, and may have applied some socialist principles in his programs, but his actions fall opposite of what socialism was. The definition of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. Any other meanings and definitions and additions simply cease to be 'socialism'. This is why 'communism' and 'socialism' are not synonymous; communism is a socio-economic model as opposed to a simple economic model.

Saying Hitler is a socialist is like saying that modern day Europe, or America for that matter, are socialist countries. Yes, there is a socialist element yet it is by and far a corporatist (related to fascism) landscape that is the key ruling body.

If Pinochet claimed to be a socialist, would you call him a socialist?

Yes, Trotsky was a Marxist. However, if a system calls for

A)the ownership of industry by the workers

and

B) the dissolution of the state

and those who claim to follow the system do not follow this, is it still the same system or a complete corruption and misinterpretation of it?


[edit on 10-12-2009 by Someone336]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
I don't know what to tell you.

I guess you can choose to reject common definitions of things if you wish, or ignore historical evidence if you feel like it, but the facts are the facts.

Hitler wasn't a socialist, and he wasn't a communist. What he said in public speeches is meaningless. What he enacted as policy is what counts, and it's down the line authoritarian capitalism.

It's the same today in America (if a little more tame).

Wow.... i am not the one ignoring the facts, and history, you are....

I provided evidence yet all you have done is claim "that is not true."

I know a lot of Socialists don't like to admit that Hitler was one, but that's because they don't want to accept that fact.

Hitler hated Capitalism... he did use it, and used rich people for his goals but at the end he even went against Capitalists in Germany...

I even gave excerpts to a speech made by Hitler himself in which he states he was against Capitalism, and was a Socialist....

EVERY program implemented by Hitler was SOCIALIST.... he was just implementing National SOCIALISM just like Stalin was implementing National Communism.... This fact doesn't make Hitler any less Socialist, nor was Stalin any less Communist either....

Just because Hitler wasn't able to implement everything he wanted doesn't mean he wasn't any less Socialist.

He presented his ideas for all to see, and they were Socialist, and against Capitalism. He loved to deride Capitalists, and more so Jewish Capitalists. He used many Jewish Capitalist at first and later on put them in death camps, but that doesn't mean he loved Capitalism...



[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Someone336


Actually both socialism and communism are primarily economic systems, not social systems. The difference between the two is that with socialism the government controls major industry while allowing free-enterprise below that, whereas with communism government control is totalitarian.

With capitalism everything is private, even the government itself...technically a corporation!

Then we add social aspects to each economic system and viola we have full blown *eco-political* systems. Please forgive my "ignorance", I trying to make sense of it all.

Originally posted by Someone336
Hitler may have said he was a socialist, and may have applied some socialist principles in his programs, but his actions fall opposite of what socialism was. The definition of socialism is that the workers own the means of production. Any other meanings and definitions and additions simply cease to be 'socialism'. This is why 'communism' and 'socialism' are not synonymous; communism is a socio-economic model as opposed to a simple economic model.
.................

No they don't... Hitler just couldn't implement everything he wanted right away because there were many Capitalists who had power and influence, but Hitler said it many times he HATED Capitalism. He even stated that Capitalists controlled the masses through wages. He loved to derive Capitalists, but he needed them.

For crying out loud he was even a vegetarian, and an environmentalist who believed that many animals were more intelligent than most people.

Hitler through his right hand man, Himmler, the following decree was issued.

Even in the midst of war, Nazi leaders maintained their commitment to ecological ideals which were, for them, an essential element of racial rejuvenation. In December 1942, Himmler released a decree "On the Treatment of the Land in the Eastern Territories," referring to the newly annexed portions of Poland. It read in part:

The peasant of our racial stock has always carefully endeavored to increase the natural powers of the soil, plants, and animals, and to preserve the balance of the whole of nature. For him, respect for divine creation is the measure of all culture. If, therefore, the new Lebensräume (living spaces) are to become a homeland for our settlers, the planned arrangement of the landscape to keep it close to nature is a decisive prerequisite. It is one of the bases for fortifying the German Volk

www.spunk.org...

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


What I'm referring to is the core, original concepts that are 'socialism' and 'communism'.

Communism adapts the 'socio' aspect in addition to the socialist economic system due to it's desire to remove the state, something they share in common with the anarchists.

Socialism is an economic model that could function in any governmental system or social system, because it simply refers to the ownership of industry by the workers.

Anything other than these definitions is no longer 'socialism' or 'communism'.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Europe and Canada (2-3 decades ago)=Socialism(plain vanilla flavor)=Centrist aka neither right nor left

I strongly disagree. If anything Libertarianism would be center, nearly merged with Anarchism.

Bottom line is ultra-capitalism and imperialism equates to Far-Right *National Socialism*

The Soviet's were even worse imperialists than the US, er at least they were pretty up front and honest about it.

As I've said, and as the last 2 videos I've posted in here present, the left/right political scale in the context ofthis discussion is a bit irrelevant. The following would bemore applicable:



This last one seems to have flaws.

But I'm not knocking all the discussion here trying to iron out the distinctions between fascism and communism.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

No they don't... Hitler just couldn't implement everything he wanted right away because there were many Capitalists who had power and influence, but Hitler said it many times he HATED Capitalism.

Hitler may have said that he hated capitalism, but it was the capitalists who were firmly in control. Hitler's ascendancy was due to the capitalist system, both German and Wall Street. It was a time of huge economic downturn in Germany, so of course people who embrace a leader who said that he would overturn capitalism.

Woodrow Wilson said he was against capitalism, yet he allowed the creation of Federal Reserve which allowed Wall Street takeover of our financial system. FDR said he was against capitalism, but his New Deal brain trust consisted of Wall Street bankers who ensured that his program allowed their continued existence. Obama has made criticisms of capitalism yet his programs allow capitalism to continue to live, and he surrounds himself with financial elite and allows them and their minions into his administration.

These people are all masquerading under the banner of left wing social reforms, while their only goal is the continued corporatist supremacy of America and ultimately, the world.

For crying out loud he was even a vegetarian, and an environmentalist who believed that many animals were more intelligent than most people.

That has nothing to do with anything. Are all environmentalists and vegetarians now authoritarians who want to lock people up in concentration camps and gulags? Ridiculous.

Originally posted by Someone336
..............
Socialism is an economic model that could function in any governmental system or social system, because it simply refers to the ownership of industry by the workers.

Anything other than these definitions is no longer 'socialism' or 'communism'.

Obviously you can't understand that Socialism is the first stage to TRANSFORM a Capitalistic nation into a Communist one.

There are different levels to the stages from Socialism to Communism, just like the stages from Capitalism to Socialism.

A Communist dictatorship doesn't stop being Communist because it is stucked in one part of the stages of Communism....

Is China any less Communist because they have been using Capitalism to stay afloat, and to become stronger?....

Likewise a Socialist nation doesn't stop being Socialist because there are obstacles that doesn't allow it to implement every dot, and comma that defines Socialism....

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You've given me quotes that Hitler SAID he hated capitalism, and I've given you objective evidence in the form of policy decisions that directly refute that claim, and reveal it to be a "big lie".

Pardon me if I choose not to rely on the word of Hitler to tell me Hitler wasn't lying.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Obviously you can't understand that Socialism is the first stage to TRANSFORM a Capitalistic nation into a Communist one.

Only in the Marxist system. Socialism far predates Marx, and he changed the definition of it to fit his idea. His "socialism" was the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which I've stated that I disagree with, not the original simply worker's ownership of industry. In your reasoning, I could declare that an apple is square, and if people believed it, then it must be so.

A Communist dictatorship doesn't stop being Communist because it is stucked in one part of the stages of Communism....

Well, yes it does.

Is China any less Communist because they have been using Capitalism to stay afloat, and to become stronger?....

Yeah, it is less communist. It was never Communist in the first place, it was Maoist.

Likewise a Socialist nation doesn't stop being Socialist because there are obstacles that doesn't allow it to implement every dot, and comma that defines Socialism....

If it embraces capitalism, then yes, it isn't socialism.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am not sure I follow your logic. Isn't government supposed to work for the people? What difference does it make if its "big government", "small government" or "medium goverment"?

A government works primarily for one of three class of citizens:

1)wealthy individuals, corporations
2)middle class
3)poor

If it works for the wealthy and corporations its "right wing" and if it works for the middle class and poor its "left wing". Really simple in my opinion!

The Lib's claim to represent the people but in practice they mainly expand the size of government, which causes more taxes, which hurts everyone. Then they handout food stamp cards making everyone lazy. You should see inside a Walmart on the first of the month!

It was Lenin who stated that revolutions are fought on an empty stomach.

But then the Rep's claim to represent the people via encouraging business, but in practice they mainly expand the police state (size of government). Er wait, so does the Lib's. But the Lib's truly do go after business more, which hurts everyone. THen you get state and local laws and restrictions and before you know it its like suicide trying to start a small business. In the end the big centralized corporations win, either way. So we still have despotism, and centralization, and undue taxes.

I hoep we dont all lose sight of my OP, as the UN system being set up is far more communistic than fascist. Not that there's much difference as far as you and I are concerned.

Originally posted by Someone336
Yes, Trotsky was a Marxist. However, if a system calls for

A)the ownership of industry by the workers

and

B) the dissolution of the state

and those who claim to follow the system do not follow this, is it still the same system or a complete corruption and misinterpretation of it?

I've never heard this idea that socialism involves getting rid of the state. How can you have command and control without it? Who is going to enforce socialism? Who is going to handle the healthcare system? Ad infinitum.

Originally posted by TrueTruth
You've given me quotes that Hitler SAID he hated capitalism, and I've given you objective evidence in the form of policy decisions that directly refute that claim, and reveal it to be a "big lie".

Pardon me if I choose not to rely on the word of Hitler to tell me Hitler was lying.

I can find websites that provide proof that Elvis is alive, and was taken by ufos, does it make it true?

Why did Hitler, and National Socialist Germany fail? They didn't have enough money to fix their military equipment which was falling apart, among other things...

Hitler needed money, as well as people to support his war machine, and without money it would have been impossible for Hitler to do what the did. But the fact is "he HATED Capitalism"....

The Communist Party of China also is using "Capitalism", does that mean they love Capitalism, or that they are Capitalists?....



[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

What I'm referring to is the core, original concepts that are 'socialism' and 'communism'.

Communism adapts the 'socio' aspect in addition to the socialist economic system due to it's desire to remove the state, something they share in common with the anarchists.

Socialism is an economic model that could function in any governmental system or social system, because it simply refers to the ownership of industry by the workers.

Anything other than these definitions is no longer 'socialism' or 'communism'.

No, I disagree! Both are primarily economic systems.

You can have national socialism, national capitalism or national communism. In each case that would indicate imperialistic motives.

Russia was just as imperialistic as the USA which was capitalistic. USA gets most of the blame because they had the tendency to hide their motives through cia action and banker manipulation while russia was more open about it.

Originally posted by Someone336

Only in the Marxist system. Socialism far predates Marx, and he changed the definition of it to fit his idea. His "socialism" was the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which I've stated that I disagree with, not the original simply worker's ownership of industry. In your reasoning, I could declare that an apple is square, and if people believed it, then it must be so.

Communism also existed before Marx, he just defined the concept.

BTW, I can make an apple squared, does it make it some other fruit because i made it square?

Originally posted by Someone336
Well, yes it does.

Really? if a man has cancer in his testicles and they have to be removed, does that mean he is not a man anymore?

Originally posted by Someone336
Yeah, it is less communist. It was never Communist in the first place, it was Maoist.

Maoism is just a variant of Communism. It is still Marxist-Leninist applied in a Chinese context, but it is no less Communist...

Lenin, and Stalin had some different ideals, but both were Communists, just like Mao was.

Originally posted by Someone336
If it embraces capitalism, then yes, it isn't socialism.

No...they are USING Capitalism... The infraestructures are still OWNED by the State. The people are still oppressed, and there are still executions of people because of their religious ideology, or because they are too democratic, or for "the betterment of the nation."

As far as we know there are still over 10,000 executions a year in China, and those are only the ones we know. The Chinese government still regards executions as a national security of the state, and they do not release any official figures, as far as i know.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]