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 Socialist Mask of Marxism

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   

When a private industry or a business held at a city or state level is taken over by the national government, this is called nationalization.


What is Nationalization?

No matter what the national government calls itself....


There is a strong pull to always consider nationalization as a construct of socialism. It is true that socialist governments may control or nationalize the majority of industries, and they may do so whether or not these industries and their private owners are happy about it. On the other hand, sometimes nationalization is supported by people or political groups that would define themselves a strongly anti-socialist and pro-capitalist. For instance, President George W. Bush’s decision to nationalize the airport security industries after the attacks on 11 September 2001 was viewed as a method for streamlining and improving quality control on security checks at airports. Few people felt this decision represented a threat to capitalism.


What is Nationalization?


Nationalisation was an election commitment of Clement Attlee, the Labour leader, in the build up to the July 1945 election. Nationalisation was where the state took over control of the main industries in Britain (coal, steel, electricity, rail etc) and where any profit made by these industries went to the country and not to share holders. The logic was that nationalisation benefited everyone, as they were publicly owned, and not the few who owned shares in those industries. Nationalisation was a long-held belief of the Labour Party, putting people before profit. If profits were then ploughed back into the nationalised industries, they would, in theory, always be in a modern state.


The Labour Party wanted to nationalise industry, as Marxists wanted to nationalise industry. But that is not socialism, and not all socialists supported nationalisation.

Arguably though nationalisation got Britain back on her feet after the devastation of the war.


Transition to Socialism

In the evolution of class society, and that is the only kind of society that has existed within the limits of written history, the function of the State is to uphold the interests of the ruling class. No State represents the interests of the whole of society. Very often is has suppressed the growth of certain private enterprises, but only for the benefit of the private owners as a whole. Within the limits of capitalism the workers are still a dependent class whether any industry is nationalised or not. It is possible, however, that nationalisation could be used to forward the interests of the working class. At present the State is used to exploit the workers in the interest of the capitalist. In a transition period the State would be taken over by the workers and used to prevent exploitation of workers.

The workers’ State, however, would differ from all other States that have existed in the past. Its function would be to restrain the reactionary capitalists until they were overthrown and such restraint was no longer necessary. With socialism a classless society emerges which needs no State in order to govern; but there will appear in its place an administration which will function in the interest of the whole of society. The State withers because it has no function in the higher stage of socialism. The advent of the Workers’ State is the only kind of nationalisation that can be of any real benefit to the working class.


NATIONALISATION: A SOCIALIST ANALYSIS

More on socialism and nationalisation from 1912...


At the present moment a kind of Socialism for the capitalists is being created. It is very modest. It contents itself with the transformation of certain industries into public services. Above all, it does not compromise one. On the contrary it will rally a good number of capitalists.

They are told: Look at the Post Office, that is a Socialist public service, functioning admirably to the profit of the community, and more cheaply than if it were entrusted to a private company as was formerly the case. The gas supply, the railways and the building of workmen’s dwellings must also become public services. They will function to the profit of the community and will chiefly benefit the capitalist class.

In capitalist society, the transformation of certain industries into municipal or national services is the last form of capitalist exploitation. It is because that form presents multiple and incontestable advantages for the bourgeoisie that in every capitalist country the same industries are becoming nationalised (Army, Police, Post Office, Telegraphs, the Mint, etc.).


Socialism and Nationalisation


edit on 6/20/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
oh boy...


Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)

[First published August 22, 2005] What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined. There are three major divisions of socialism, all antagonistic to each other. One is democratic socialism, that places the emphasis on democratic means, but then government is a tool for improving welfare and equality. A second division is Marxist-Leninism, which based on ascientific theory of dialectical materialism, sees the necessity of a dictatorship (“of the proletariat”) to create a classless society and universal equality. Then, there is the third division, or state socialism. This is a non-Marxist or anti-Marxist dictatorship that aims at near absolute economic control for the purpose of economic development and national power, all construed to benefit the people.

Mussolinis fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitlers National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

To be clear, National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy (only in his last years did Stalin plan for his own Holocaust of the Jews).

I’ve read Hitler’s Mein Kampf (all online here) and can quote the following from Volume 2:

Chapter VII:


In 1919-20 and also in 1921 I attended some of the bourgeois (capitalist) meetings. Invariably I had the same feeling towards these as towards the compulsory dose of castor oil in my boyhood days. . . . And so it is not surprising that the sane and unspoiled masses shun thesebourgeois mass meetings as the devil shuns holy water.

Chapter 4:


The folkish philosophy is fundamentally distinguished from the Marxist by reason of the fact that the former recognizes the significance of race and therefore also personal worth and has made these the pillars of its structure. These are the most important factors of its view of life. 


If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand the fundamental importance of this essential principle, if it should merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground. For that reason it would not have the right to call itself a philosophy of life. If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism, just as our national-bourgeois parties are.

Chapter XII:


The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself.
...

democraticpeace.wordpress.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Honestly, if you are going to continue with your nonsense, you're going to have to re-define a majority of the Right as Socialists.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
What is socialism? It is a politico-economic philosophy that believes government must direct all major economic decisions by command, and thus all the means of production for the greater good, however defined.




ElectricUniverse,


Just because somebody posts something on the internet, doesn't mean it's true or accurate. Case in point.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I wish electricuniverse would use his/her superior intellect and understanding and explain why anarchists are socialists if it means state control?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - “Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality” Mikhail Bakunin, one of the first anarchists. To be exact he was a Collectivist.

Collectivists differed from communists in the use of money, collectivists thought money should be maintained, communists wanted to abolish it. Of course anarchism just means support of direct action, as apposed to using politics as in Marxism.


Socialism can be many, very different, things. For anarchists it must be libertarian, indeed class struggle anarchists often interchangeably describe themselves as libertarian socialists or libertarian communists.

Anarchists are socialists who believe that socialism must be built out of the struggles of working class people, acting in their own class interests. ‘Socialism’ cannot be imposed from above.


What is Socialism? An Anarchist Perspective.

So how do you address the obvious contradiction in your thinking? You can't. All you have is an incomplete dictionary "definition".


edit on 6/22/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The highest ranking communist official to have defected from the U.S.S.R. is warning that the Democratic Party is allying itself with the Communist Party to transform this nation into socialism/communism.


History usually repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing that re-enactment with your own eyes. In 1978, I paid with two death sentences from my native Romania for helping her people rid themselves of their Marxist dictatorship, carefully disguised as socialism. Thirty years later I witnessed how the same Marxism, camouflaged as socialism, began infecting the shores of my adoptive country, the United States, which had just won a 44-year Cold War against Marxism and against its earthly incarnation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In a 2008 column titled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway,” Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Action Commission of the Communist Party USA, strongly endorsed the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, appealing to all working people in the United States to back Senator Barack Obama, in order to provide “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.”

That new alliance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party was a first in the history of the United States, the world’s headquarters of democracy and free enterprise. In November 2008, over 65 million Americans who were unable to identify the stealth virus of Marxism that was infecting the Democratic Party voted to give this party the White House and both chambers of Congress.
...

pjmedia.com...

This is so all wannabe socialists/communists and even Democrats and Progressive Democrats can see that the warning that regular people have been giving them about this very same stealth take over by socialism/communism of the democratic party has been coming to reality and even former high ranking Communist officials who defected from the U.S.S.R. and even China have been warning about this for decades.



Sorry, but complete codswallop. The US has shifted so far rightwards, that some people are accusing Social Democrats of being Communists.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

How about replying to the substance of my post with an on topic post of your own? Your turn Anok, I'm going out

edit on 15-6-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


The "substance of your posts"?... You only post YOUR VIEWS, and nothing more... Even wikipedia shows that Mussolini, and even Hitler were socialists, and non-biased sources, a couple of which I posted, also state the same thing.

Corporations is about "centralizing power", it is about "monopoly", and these are marks of socialism... They are not marks of a FREE MARKET/Capitalism.

BTW, why does the UN, a very socialist organization, and other world groups CLEARLY state that they want to create a One World "SOCIAL/DEMOCRATIC" Government derived of CORPORATE mandates...and they even call this GLOBAL DEMOCRATIZATION... They don't call it "REPUBLICANIZATION"...

The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster

These governments would not accept a "social-democratic pattern of globalization" unless their hands are FORCED by a popular movement (Occupy and Anthropogenic Global Warming movements), another Great Depression (the current GLOBAL economic crisis), or an ecological disaster (Global Warming been blamed on humans)



Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

BTW, you became a member in 2011. I have been a member since 2004, from 2004-2007 under the name Muaddib, and other members and I have been warning about the direction of "SOCIALISM" this nation has been leading to...

The "FEDERAL RESERVE", a national bank, is a SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST idea, and it was implemented in 1913 by PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS under a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT as President, Woodrow Wilson...

It was these same PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS, under Woodrow Wilson who funded the IRS as it exists now with all it's PROGRESSIVE TAXES, which is another SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST idea...

Even the communist manifesto points out that these two, among many other points, are needed for a socialist/communist nation to exist...

You are very poorly misinformed, and just because some leftwing people put some stars in your VIEWPOINTS WITH NO FACTS, doesn't make you right...

FACTS and evidence make you right... and you have shown none.




edit on 25-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I wish electricuniverse would use his/her superior intellect and understanding and explain why anarchists are socialists if it means state control?
...


I wish you would use your "superior intellect" to tell us how can anarchists be socialist, when the original meaning of socialism states that the STATE/GOVERNMENT owns and controls the means of production, not the re-written version of history done by people like ANOK have been doing...



so·cial·ism
noun ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2a: 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...


edit on 25-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ANOK
I wish electricuniverse would use his/her superior intellect and understanding and explain why anarchists are socialists if it means state control?
...


I wish you would use your "superior intellect" to tell us how can anarchists be socialist, when the original meaning of socialism states that the STATE/GOVERNMENT owns and controls the means of production, not the re-written version of history done by people like ANOK have been doing...



so·cial·ism
noun ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2a: 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...


edit on 25-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


I think that you have a somewhat circumscribed view of these concepts.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

I think that you have a somewhat circumscribed view of these concepts.


And pray tell what exactly do you mean?

I am very interested to read what you have to claim.
edit on 29-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
this already exsists, they are just making it public to make some money out of it and put on a good old show, they are all fools anyways, actors so to speak. The whole NWO thing everyone is fearing, that already exsists also, you think america and russia are against each other and all other countries, naw they are all in the same buisness working for the same guy. this whole thing is just a distraction so that you dont see that this stuff in reality, really doesnt matter.

And all the politicians are sleeping in the same bed, otherwise we wouldnt even have a government if they were all against each other. they are just one big family playing a huge joke on everyone.
edit on 29-7-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Wow... so a graphic, made up copilation has more weigth than actual facts?...

Since when?...

Hitler was a socialist, just like Mussolini. Hitler implemente SOCIALIST laws, and legislature, and even ORDERED, like Obama, what the owners of companies should build, "for the good of the nation"...


edit on 10-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 


I could pull up videos of people claiming they know Elvis is still alive and living somewhere... Does that make it the truth?... No... FACTS is what constitutes the truth, not made up videos by joe schmuck...



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
When people create lies and then repeat them to obscure or fracture truth it
is not good for freedom.

OP clearly engages in that with this thread which is based upon conjecture and
an undefined, unrealistic definition of Communism. Using government to better
civic life is the point of government, The tripe spewed forth in this thread
is a poor attempt to manufacture fear in hopes to create sentiment that will
vote for the "other" party. Using the word communism and posting it on the internet
does not constitute truth or understanding as far as truth is concerned.

OP should reform and read history for several minutes, any third grade text can
clear up the ideological positioning of a party that is ethnocentric and obsessed
with founding culture.
edit on 10-8-2012 by thepresident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I was one of the people who first posted about H.R. 1388, and we excerpted several parts from the bill, including Section 6104, which has dissapeared for some reason, with the fact that Democrats included a provision in the bill which stated, and I quote...



Section 6104 of The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act requires that a commission be established to investigate, "Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
...



That section which was originally part of H.R. 1388 was added to H.R. 1444 under Section 4 named "Duties".

You can read it right in the following link...



...
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
...
(8) The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for primary and secondary school students and by raising awareness of existing incentives.

(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.


www.govtrack.us...

Did you miss the part of the bill that states MANDATORY?...

I guess MANDATORY = VOLUNTEERISM to leftwingers these days...

Who knows, with all the re-writting of history being done these days by leftwingers, including changing the definitions of words like socialism, it could be true that for you all MANDATORY = VOLUNTEERISM...



edit on 10-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Personally my issue with this concept is the absolutism involved in the argument. Social programs do not equal socialism/communism/Maoism or any other ism one can think of. They are a necessary part of the social fabric and have been such since the dawn of society. There are simply expenses involved in living in large groups and those expenses have to be shared. In my honest opinion we hold ourselves to too low a standard in this regard. We do not seem willing, in the west, to shoulder our share of social responsibility. We've created a culture of selfishness and fear that is palpable and overwhelming.

I am all for individual achievement, and reaping the rewards of the sweat of ones own brow. But I am also empathetic to those who are not able to achieve as much as I am able to and freely accept that I need to pitch in a bit to help those folks out.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
...
I am all for individual achievement, and reaping the rewards of the sweat of ones own brow. But I am also empathetic to those who are not able to achieve as much as I am able to and freely accept that I need to pitch in a bit to help those folks out.

~Heff



"Social responsibility" is only possible when people have more than what they need, and this is only possible under a capitalist/free market nation.

You can't, and most people wouldn't, give milk that your child needs for other children. You can only give to others when the needs of your family are met and exceeded.

Are there SOME people that share even under dire circumtances? Sure, but even those people don't give the food that their children, or themselves need to survive to another family.

Under socialism/communism, the "state/government", which in communism is called "the workers party", mandates and rations everything to the most basic needs to the point of starving most people living under such socialist/communist dictatorships.

Socialism and communism will always lead to dictatorship. There is no way out of that because once you give ALL power to the state, and take away individual freedom "for the good of all", you are in fact making sure that the people have no real power, and only a small group of people "who claim to be workers and represent workers" have all the power.


edit on 10-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



"Social responsibility" is only possible when people have more than what they need, and this is only possible under a capitalist/free market nation.


Not that I'm a fan... but China seems to be doing pretty darned well these days. I am not a communist nor a communist sympathizer - merely pointing out that your statement isn't totally backed up by real world evidence.


Socialism and communism will always lead to dictatorship. There is no way out of that because once you give ALL power to the state and take away individual freedom "for the good of all", you are in fact making sure that the people have no real power and only a small group of people "who claim to be workers and represent workers" have all the power.


This doesn't seem much different to me than what we currently have now. Corporations and the ultra wealthy trump the middle class 100 out of 100 times... unless it's an election year - then their batting average might drop a bit as local politicians milk votes.

Aside from that - I stand by my initial statements. Being a part of society includes having some level or responsibility for more than just oneself. Now if you want to argue what level of "chipping" in is fair or unfair - that debate would make sense to me. But a general argument that all social obligations = communism loses me.

~Heff




top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join