The Socialist Mask of Marxism

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Under socialism, yes, communism, no. Corporations cannot survive in a purely communist economy as they'd be heavily taxed and their workers, their CEO's, will not be able to earn as much as they typically are now.

Really?... and pray tell me what are cooperative enterprises under communism?...

A cooperative ("coop"), co-operative ("co-op"), or coöperative ("coöp") is an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit.[1] Cooperatives include non-profit community organizations and businesses that are owned and managed by the people who use its services (a consumer cooperative) and/or by the people who work there (a worker cooperative).

Various aspects regarding cooperative enterprise are the focus of study in the field of cooperative economics.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

A cooperative is a form of business/corporation, and it exists under socialism and communism.

SUPPOSEDLY, in a cooperative the workers own the factory where they work, but in REALITY since NO ONE CAN OWN ANYTHING (remember no private property whatsoever under socialism/communism), in fact THE STATE is the one that owns such cooperative "in the name of the workers".

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
What is socialism? Well to [snipped] socialism is any form of wealth distribution. Fact is, there has never been a country in mordern time that has operated without some form of socialism in place. Never.

To [snipped] "social security" and other social programs are "socialist because of the word "social"... Or so it seems...

But in reality "social security" the person working puts aside a certain amount of what he earns, through the government. When that person retires, or is disabled, depending on how much you worked and put in you get a monthly amount. At least it was this way ORIGINALLY... Later on because of [snipped] "social security" has been used to pay for a lot of things that it shouldn't be paying, which is why the coffers for social security are almost empty.

Originally posted by daskakik

Because you say so right? OK.

No, because it has ALWAYS been so...

Originally posted by daskakik
Even more free markets? You're reaching. The state of a market being more or less free is particular to that market and not indicative of any other markets.

I am not "reaching"... What is to the right of "small government"?... no government at all, so in a way the ORIGINAL definition of anarchism is the extreme right of "small government" under Republicanism.

A complete free market with no regulations whatsoever and where the owner decides whenever he wants, and when to change prices, even if he had a former agreement, would also fall under the ORIGINAL definition of ANARCHISM...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Really?... and pray tell me what are cooperative enterprises under communism?...

No it's not the same thing. The objective for business/corporations is to maximize the profits of their shareholders. There are very very few corporations out there that will sacrifice this objective for the greater good of society, and there are very very few corporations that would tolerate government forcing them to distribute their profits. Corporations simply cannot survive in pure communist economic conditions.

"social security" and other social programs are "socialist because of the word "social"... Or so it seems...

But in reality "social security" the person working puts aside a certain amount of what he earns, through the government.

Yep, and socialized healthcare like medicare and medicaid involves your hard earned money being taxed towards paying for the healthcare of others, those who formally paid taxes and worked. Your taxes go into infrastructure, hospitals, police. Social security is compulsory, as are all those other programmes.

You can't pick and choose or make exceptions on what socialist programmes you accept and which ones you don't. Either you oppose socialism as a system or you don't. Make up your mind.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

If you can't see the error in your logic than there really isn't much one can say.

In thread after thread you are shown the error in your "all or nothing" logic. I know you feel you're on a crusade but after a while it starts to look like good old fashion bigotry.

Bigotry is the state of mind of a "bigot", a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

No it's not the same thing. The objective for business/corporations is to maximize the profits of their shareholders. There are very very few corporations out there that will sacrifice this objective for the greater good of society, and there are very very few corporations that would tolerate government forcing them to distribute their profits. Corporations simply cannot survive in pure communist economic conditions.

i don't remember in the definition of cooperative anything about "the greater good of society"...

You see, it is YOU who are trying to twist the meaning fo these words...

I even put it in bold and you somehow became blind to the fact...

Do I really need to post AGAIN the definition of cooperative?...

A cooperative ("coop"), co-operative ("co-op"), or coöperative ("coöp") is an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit.[1] Cooperatives include non-profit community organizations and businesses that are owned and managed by the people who use its services (a consumer cooperative) and/or by the people who work there (a worker cooperative).

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Yep, and socialized healthcare like medicare and medicaid involves your hard earned money being taxed towards paying for the healthcare of others, those who formally paid taxes and worked. Your taxes go into infrastructure, hospitals, police. Social security is compulsory, as are all those other programmes.

You can't pick and choose or make exceptions on what socialist programmes you accept and which ones you don't. Either you oppose socialism as a system or you don't. Make up your mind.

WRONG... You are confusing NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE with regular healthcare... In regular healthcare you put aside money FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE AND THAT OF YOUR FAMILY, not for EVERYONE ELSE...

Under NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE you are forced to pay for EVERYONE'S HEALTHCARE...

See? you don't even know the differences...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
i don't remember in the definition of cooperative anything about "the greater good of society"...

Yes, and to you this automatically means communism, but to any rational thinking person, the two aren't automatically one in the same. Not everybody works by your rules and your own personal definitions.

I'll say this again, the goal of corporations is to maximize profit, there are very few corporations out there that will survive through a pure communist economic system because their ability in making profit will be restricted, and any profit they do make will be significantly taxed. The current corporations in the United States thrive on the basis that they get a significant amount of tax cuts, something purely communist governments don't do, and they thrive through low regulated economic systems. Corporations cannot survive in communist systems. Corporations can exist but only if they are heavily owned and controlled by the government in these communist systems. But by then they cease being private corporations.

You see, it is YOU who are trying to twist the meaning fo these words...

Nope, and I'm sure alot of people will agree with me in saying that you are the one twisting definitions around here. corporate lobbyists spend millions calling for deregulation, for more tax cuts, not for increased government control and regulation on the economy.

WRONG... You are confusing NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE with regular healthcare...

It doesn't matter, both are socialist in nature. It doesn't matter if we're talking about medicare or a single payer healthcare system like they have in Canada, they are both socialist in nature, they both require tax payer funds, on both sides you tax dollars are being used to treat another unhealthy person:

socialized medicine a system of medical care controlled by the government.

medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Both medicare in the United States and single payer healthcare in Canada are controlled and administered by the government, both require mandatory tax payer funds.

So again, either you oppose socialism or you don't you can't pick and choose. If you support partial socialism, that's fine, but then don't rally against socialism as a system, because this would make you a hypocrite.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

You're clearly using some sort of "newspeak".
You make up your own terms (or adapt them from some niche) and declare them the absolute truth.
That's just not how it works.
Well, it actually does work, but only within that certain niche where you found your twisted, upside down paradigm.

Lots of right-wing conservatives on this planet would disagree with your assessment about governmental regulations/state control/social systems... and your answer to them is probably something like "you aren't REAL conservatives then! I define what REAL conservatives are and who is left or right-wing!".

There is no point in arguing with you when you make up your own rules.

reply to post by benevolent tyrant

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
hmmmmmmm...... I believe that I could simply remove Hitler's name from your -- quoted -- statement, replace it with Stalin's (or Kruschev's) and I would still be making a valid historic statement.

Yes.
Both extremes (left AND right) are interchangeable at this point... but they are still not the same.
As Kali74 stated, it's important to understand and differentiate both ideologies (sort of "know your enemy") in order to avoid repeating our history.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Yes, and to you this automatically means communism, but to any rational thinking person, the two aren't automatically one in the same. Not everybody works by your rules and your own personal definitions.

By "rational thinking person" you mean "leftwingers who don't want to accept facts right?...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'll say this again, the goal of corporations is to maximize profit, there are very few corporations out there that will survive through a pure communist economic system because their ability in making profit will be restricted, and any profit they do make will be significantly taxed. The current corporations in the United States thrive on the basis that they get a significant amount of tax cuts, something purely communist governments don't do, and they thrive through low regulated economic systems.

WRONG... The United States is the country with the HIGHEST tax rates on corporations.... It is because of this that many Corporations from the United States MOVE to other countries...

World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically

Joseph Mason is the Moyse/LBA Chair of Banking at the Ourso School of Business at Louisiana State University and a senior fellow at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

United States-based companies and hardworking Americans face a steadily growing problem, one oddly self-imposed by Uncle Sam. Our current tax system puts businesses and workers at a competitive disadvantage in the global market and discourages companies from investing in operations here at home.

On Sunday, April 1, Japan lowered its corporate tax rate, leaving the United States with the highest effective rate among developed countries: 39.2 percent.
...

www.usnews.com...

Goes to show how much you know about this topic doesn't it?... Wait, I know you are not going to repond this or will just try to twist your way out of this predicament AGAIN...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Corporations cannot survive in communist systems. Corporations can exist but only if they are heavily owned and controlled by the government in these communist systems. But by then they cease being private corporations.

WRONG again... Corporations thrive under socialist/communist nations, the only difference is that "the state" owns corporations...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It doesn't matter, both are socialist in nature. It doesn't matter if we're talking about medicare or a single payer healthcare system like they have in Canada, they are both socialist in nature, they both require tax payer funds, on both sides you tax dollars are being used to treat another unhealthy person:

WRONG AGAIN... The regular healthcare we had, before Obamacare, was not socialist because you were paying for your healthcare, and your family's...

Medicare and Medicaid are socialist, btw, have you seen what has been happening with medicaid and medicare?... Have you been to a Vet's hospital?...

Much money is lost because the government goes through much red tape which leaves less money for medicare, medicaid and Veterans insurance benefits. Many times people do not get the help they need, or meicaid/medicare or veteran's insurance doesn't cover everything a person needs, which is why many people supplement this lack of oversight by the government with private insurance that helps pay what medicare/medicaid and veteran's insurance doesn't cover. And that is IF you can pay for it.

If you actually think that medicare/medicaid and veteran's insurance are a good reason to have nationalized healthcare YOU SIR ARE COMPLETELY LOST AND WRONG...

reply to post by ColCurious


So far the ONLY people who do not agree with me are LEFTWINGERS, I wonder why...

Anyway, how about you choose ONE single thing I said and PROVE WITH EVIDENCE, not with claims from another leftwinger, that what I stated is wrong...

PLEASE GO AHEAD...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by ColCurious

 

So far the ONLY people who do not agree with me are LEFTWINGERS, I wonder why...

I'm not a leftwinger and I disagree with you.

Anyway, how about you choose ONE single thing I said and PROVE WITH EVIDENCE, not with claims from another leftwinger, that what I stated is wrong...

PLEASE GO AHEAD...

Can't be done because you dismiss whatever facts you are presented with.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Yes, and to you this automatically means communism, but to any rational thinking person, the two aren't automatically one in the same. Not everybody works by your rules and your own personal definitions.

When inalienable rights are severely restricted or banned "for the common good" YES IT IS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM...

Under socialism/communism your rights can be suspended "for the good of the collective"...

I have actually proved "they are not my definitions"... But YOU have proven that YOU don't like being proven wrong...

You CLAIMED that "cooperatives" only want "the greater good of society" . I PROVED that cooperatives work together FOR THEIR MUTUAL BENEFIT... NOT FOR SOCIETY...

Under communism/socialism "the mutual benefit" is the benefit of the STATE... although I know leftwingers who have never lived under a true socialist/communist system claim "in socialism/communism" everything is done for the good of the people"... This is NOT SO...

For example, in Cuba, the government owns hotels, and they try to maximy their profit, by paying the Cubans working there MUCH LESS than the minimal pay than people who work for hotels in CAPITALIST nations. The government charges A LOT OF MONEY to tourists, Cubans can't stay in government-owned tourist hotels or motels... So who benefits from paying Cubans less, and charging tourists a lot?... Cubans?... ..

The same thing happens in EVERY country that has embraced completely socialism/communism.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'll say this again, the goal of corporations is to maximize profit, there are very few corporations out there that will survive through a pure communist economic system because their ability in making profit will be restricted, and any profit they do make will be significantly taxed.

Humm, you obviously can't reason that well, do you?... Let me ask you this...if the STATE/government owns the corporations WHY would the STATE tax itself?....

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The current corporations in the United States thrive on the basis that they get a significant amount of tax cuts, something purely communist governments don't do, and they thrive through low regulated economic systems. Corporations cannot survive in communist systems. Corporations can exist but only if they are heavily owned and controlled by the government in these communist systems. But by then they cease being private corporations.

... WHY IN THE HELL WOULD CORPORATIONS MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY IF THEY GET THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TAX CUTS YOU CLAIM THEY DO?... I have already PROVED that the United States has the HIGHEST TAX RATES for corporations... Yet you are ARGUING that this is not true...

As for Medicare/Medicaid and Veteran's insurance, THEY SUCK.... Lots of money is wasted in paperwork and red tape, and the people are not given the healthcare they should really get... People get the minimum, IF they get it...

Originally posted by daskakik

I'm not a leftwinger and I disagree with you.

Really? and where are you exactly in the political spectrum?

I would also love to hear how someone who has been in the site since 2010 has only responded to my posts in this thread...

Originally posted by daskakik
Can't be done because you dismiss whatever facts you are presented with.

Oh, so you CAN'T... Rest my case...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Really? and where are you exactly in the political spectrum?

I'm not on it. I've told you before, I'm apolitical.

I would also love to hear how someone who has been in the site since 2010 has only responded to my posts in this thread...

Because I'm denying ignorance.

Oh, so you CAN'T... Rest my case...

Of course not, but that is because you are so absorbed by your own opinion that you don't listen to reason and not because you're right.

Originally posted by daskakik

I'm not on it. I've told you before, I'm apolitical.

Really? and why is an "apolitical" person discussing politics?... humm... Oh and "to deny ignorance" is not a real answer... it is just an excuse that "sounds good but it's a lie" because you have no answer...

Originally posted by daskakik
Because I'm denying ignorance.

RIIIGHT by not presenting any facts and just making CLAIMS?.... I see...

Originally posted by daskakik
Of course not, but that is because you are so absorbed by your own opinion that you don't listen to reason and not because you're right.

AGAIN, PROOF. Stop the BS and PRESENT PROOF...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
...
So again, either you oppose socialism or you don't you can't pick and choose. If you support partial socialism, that's fine, but then don't rally against socialism as a system, because this would make you a hypocrite.

BTW, do show me where I "rallied partially for socialism"...

The old system where people paid FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE, AND THAT OF THEIR FAMILY is not a socialist healthcare...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Really? and why is an "apolitical" person discussing politics?... humm... Oh and "to deny ignorance" is not a real answer... it is just an excuse that "sounds good" because you have no answer...

I can discuss all kinds of things that I don't have any real attachment to. It actually allows me to be more objective.

Denying ignorance is what ATS is about. How could that not be a good answer?

RIIIGHT by not presenting any facts and just making CLAIMS?.... I see...

I did and have in other threads and you dismiss them every time. I have seen others do the same with the same results. Others have posted in this thread that they have noticed the same, but of course we must all be wrong because you say so.

AGAIN, PROOF...stop BS and PRESENT PROOF...

Well how about the fact that the between the mid 40's and the early 70's, which you claim is 30-60 years after the socialist agenda took foothold in America, the nation saw the greatest growth in the middle class. Doesn't seem very oppressive to me.

I'm sure you will find and post all kinds of facts about regulations brought into effect during that time. That would just prove that a certain amount of regulation has its up side, which would go against your assertion that things were better during the robber baron days, aka free markets.

Just to prove that my arguments about Hitler being a socialist are not just "mine", here is what a libertarian political commentator, and activist Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. has to say on Hitler...

For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.

The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. "Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide…. Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point."

The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point.

In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."

What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.
...

mises.org...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
When inalienable rights are severely restricted or banned "for the common good" YES IT IS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM...

So your inalienable rights are being severely restricted or banned because of some elderly person recieving much needed healthcare? That's an.... interesting way of seeing things.

I have actually proved "they are not my definitions"...

No you haven't. You think cooperatives and communism are one in the same, are aren't necessarily.

Under communism/socialism "the mutual benefit" is the benefit of the STATE... although I know leftwingers who have never lived under a true socialist/communist system claim "in socialism/communism" everything is done for the good of the people"... This is NOT SO...

Where did I say communism was for the good of the people? I also said that communist economic conditions do not favour the existence of corporations let alone big business. Corporations are in the business of maximizing profits for their shareholders, not for society. Communism dictates that wealth be spread, and that profits be distributed to make society 'equal', these conditions make it hard for corporations to function. This is common sense.

As for Medicare/Medicaid and Veteran's insurance, THEY SUCK....

I guess that's why the likes of Reagan and Ron Paul never proposed privatization of these programmes during their presidential campaigns.

Originally posted by daskakik

I can discuss all kinds of things that I don't have any real attachment to. It actually allows me to be more objective.

An "apolitical" person cares not for politics, so why would a non-political person discuss politics?... If you are discussing politics I'TS BECAUSE YOU CARE... hence you are not "apolitical"...

Originally posted by daskakik
Denying ignorance is what ATS is about. How could that not be a good answer?

It is the motto of the website, but giving that statement as "proof" is not an answer... You need to learn to make a concise and intelligent answer to an argument, and saying "let's deny ignorance" without pointing out which one of my arguments is wrong and PRESENTING PROOF of why it is wrong is simply being dishonest

Originally posted by daskakik
I did and have in other threads and you dismiss them every time. I have seen others do the same with the same results. Others have posted in this thread that they have noticed the same, but of course we must all be wrong because you say so.

What facts did you present?... I only saw YOUR OPINION... Opinions are NOT FACTS...

Originally posted by daskakik
Well how about the fact that the between the mid 40's and the early 70's, which you claim is 30-60 years after the socialist agenda took foothold in America, the nation saw the greatest growth in the middle class. Doesn't seem very oppressive to me.

And of course you forget the Depression, and the recessions and inflation in between those times, not to mention the fact that prices skyrocketed, such as prices on healthcare. Also of note is that Germany, under Hitler also saw a time of growth.

Another fact is that during those times "CORPORATIONS" grew, and became monopolies which gave more jobs to people. So are you pro "large corporations" now?...

Originally posted by daskakik
I'm sure you will find and post all kinds of facts about regulations brought into effect during that time. That would just prove that a certain amount of regulation has its up side, which would go against your assertion that things were better during the robber baron days, aka free markets.

I could post a lot more facts, such as Americans between those times were against socialism, and leftwing ideologies, except for the 70s, and it took that long for Americans to slowly accept leftwing ideas, and because of this other policies were implemented which balanced for a time the diservice that Woodrow Wilson and Progressive Democrats did to this country.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
An "apolitical" person cares not for politics, so why would a non-political person discuss politics?... If you are discussing politics I'TS BECAUSE YOU CARE... hence you are not "apolitical"...

It means I care about the truth even though I don't have a particular stance on the subject, unless that goes against your definition.

It is the motto of the website, but giving that statement as "proof" is not an answer... You need to learn to make a concise and intelligent answer to an argument, and saying "let's deny ignorance" without pointing out which one of my arguments is wrong and PRESENTING PROOF of why it is wrong is simply being dishonest

It is proof enough of why I am participating. It is my personal reason and no further proof is needed.

What facts did you present?... I only saw YOUR OPINION... Opinions are NOT FACTS...

You didn't even bother to look. I posted a quote and a link to the The Doctrine of Fascism which clearly states that it was a rightist ideal.

Another fact is that during those times "CORPORATIONS" grew, and became monopolies which gave more jobs to people. So are you pro "large corporations" now?...

Like I said I don't care one way or the other. I am just posting the facts I come across. I don't think that monopolies where any larger than in the time of the robber barons which happened to be in the 19th century.

I could post a lot more facts, such as Americans between those times were against socialism, and leftwing ideologies, except for the 70s, and it took that long for Americans to slowly accept leftwing ideas, and because of this other policies were implemented which balanced for a time the diservice that Woodrow Wilson and Progressive Democrats did to this country.

But you stated that the socialist plan was already in play, and had been for 30 years, which, according to you, should have shown different results. It didn't, so either the claim that it was in play is wrong or your claim that it is oppressive is wrong. It is proof that you are wrong, in one way or another.