The Socialist Mask of Marxism

Originally posted by aaron2209
Can I get back the 10 mins of my life I just spent reading this dribble?

You too? I'll tell you one thing I did not take away from this thread and that is a clear cut definition of socialism.

All I see is an awful lot of denialism from all sides here. It is almost like people are BRAGGING who is MORE RIGHT than the other. Apparently it IS a TABOO to pick sides and try to define why you stand for that political ideology.

The op starts his thread on the asinine premise that liberals are masquarading as socialists or communists...even cannot definitely pick which is true. Then the supposed left wingers call the american government fascist without comprehending what fascism is, the op straightens them out oddly enough for someone ignorant in politics, and it is back and forth arguing WHO is MORE RIGHT than the other!

WTF happened to left wing politics in america is my sincere question?? God damm McCarthyism and all the stupidity that man stood for. Since I moved to europe I feel awfully ashamed to admit I am an american and most eurpeans take that americans are all stupid to know the difference between liberalism of state welfare and the true socialism that once existed in europe.

The big government that makes NO SENSE in america is BECAUSE OF liberalism. Forget progressive or communist politics that NEVER have existed. Yes we must fear and fear socialism because corporations are not part of capitalism, despite it being the main branch of capitalism. I WASTED an hour of my time reading crap!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Delusion. The whole world agrees that Fascism and Nazism is on the Right of the Political Ideology spectrum. Your emotional, irrational arguments, logic and linguistic twisting will not change this fact. Nor will it change the fact that unchecked Capitalism and far-Right Authoritarian ideology are just as dangerous and choking as far-Left Authoritarian ideology and Despotic Socialism.

Because the free market system is so weak politically, the forms of capitalism that are experienced in many countries are very far from the ideal. They are a corrupted version, in which powerful interests prevent competition from playing its natural, healthy role.

RAGHURAM G. RAJAN, Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.

BERTRAND RUSSELL, "Freedom in Society"

Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets.

PAUL KRUGMAN, "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?" New York Times, Sep. 2, 2009

Notable Quotes

reply to post by Kali74


Actually despite the fact that he started off the thread on a completly wrong basis he DID provide sufficient evidence of what facism is via the fascist manifesto. Hitler called himself a national socialist, which means in some aspects he is right wing and in other aspects he is left wing. THIS CAN HAPPEN YOU KNOW!

Forget the democrat versus republican debate cause it is arguing about conservatives versus liberals.

To be a progressive means voting for spusa or cpusa and they get less than 1% of vote each election period.

Technically according to the communist manifesto a pure communist resembles an anarchist, but according to real life practice we call communists those that are full socialists and statists. The communist manifesto might as well have been called the anarchist manifesto!!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Kali74

 

...which means in some aspects he is right wing and in other aspects he is left wing. THIS CAN HAPPEN YOU KNOW!

.

They are polar opposites, so no you can't be both.

In the times of Hitler this is what left and right meant...

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

You can't both be anti-statist and a state interventionist at the same time.

You really have to understand the history of those times to see it all in context. If you look at it with the twisted version of terms used today history simply makes no sense.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Unfortunately, you coninue to TRY to rewrite history to fit your needs, and so COMMUNISM can be achieved. You want to completely forego the "stage of socialism" that Marx talked about, and want to implement directly COMMUNISM...like MANY other COMMUNISTS want...

I presented evidence which shows quite clearly that both Hitler, and Mussolini were SOCIALISTS... They favored the STATE/government over the individual... They put the "collective" over the individual... They implemented SOCIALIST programs, and were against FREE MARKET/CAPITALISM...

I am not re-writing history I am giving you the true definitions of those terms.

You keep ranting about "communist" countries that did not practice communism.

I thought I made it pretty clear I am not a Marxist. Look at my screen name and sig for peats sake.

But again socialism is NOT the state, so you can show all the evidence you want that Hitler supported the state. He did because fascism is nationalism. Nationalism is state ownership, socialism is the workers common ownership. Socialism is an economic system not a political system.

Why you keep getting that confused I have no idea lol.

Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalization, but may also be municipalization.

Nationalization

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

www.spunk.org...

reply to post by ANOK


You are wrong:

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
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I keep providing facts on these same issues on numerous threads to these same posters and it is useless...they refuse to read the facts and face the truth...they refuse to face the fact that one form of socialism is government control of the means of production..
They do indeed try to rewrite history and make it something else, some kind of collective utopia..with the tired old line that if it is just implemented correctly it would be wonderful...BS....it has never and will never work...
And the founders did not set up any forms of socialism, that is another one of their lies..police and fire are not socialism no matter how you try to stretch the definition.

Freedom and private property rights are the only things that work....period.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
All I see is an awful lot of denialism from all sides here. It is almost like people are BRAGGING who is MORE RIGHT than the other. Apparently it IS a TABOO to pick sides and try to define why you stand for that political ideology.

But what if you don't stand for any political ideology, is it wrong to state that that is the case?

The op starts his thread on the asinine premise that liberals are masquarading as socialists or communists...even cannot definitely pick which is true.

Then the supposed left wingers call the american government fascist without comprehending what fascism is, the op straightens them out oddly enough for someone ignorant in politics, and it is back and forth arguing WHO is MORE RIGHT than the other!

And now you are here trying to say you are even more right then them. Fascism is a mixed model which is why you can cherry pick it's doctrine to support whatever definition you prefer.

Now, I'm of the idea that left and right don't cover all the aspects of a state and should only be used to describe the economic aspect. If someone believes that left and right includes both economic and authoritarian aspects of government or if you believe that the only thing that is on the right is 100% free markets, then an agreement will never be reached.

In this regard fascism is right of the center because it lets individuals participate in the market in what ever way they see fit, at the personal level. It isn't free markets because the state has a lot of control. That is a lot like the US. You're free to open whatever type of shop you like as long as you get the permits and meet the required standards (EPA, OSHA etc.).

The big government that makes NO SENSE in america is BECAUSE OF liberalism. Forget progressive or communist politics that NEVER have existed.

I agree with this.

Yes we must fear and fear socialism because corporations are not part of capitalism, despite it being the main branch of capitalism. I WASTED an hour of my time reading crap!

This again falls into the definition trap. It is odd that you claim it is the main branch of capitalism and not part of it at the same time. Corporations existed before socialism so I don't understand why you are making it seem like they are exlusive to socialism.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ANOK

 

You are wrong:

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
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

How am I wrong? All those definitions are true in a sense, but it does not break it down to the actual meaning of the word, only how the word has been used.

It is an economic system of collective control by the workers, it can have a state, but even then workers still own the means of production. It can also be anarchist, which you all seem to keep ignoring, if socialism is state control how can it be anarchist?

You need to understand history.

This was written in 1887...

There are two distinct phases of socialism in the labor movement throughout the world today. One is known as anarchism, without political government or authority; the other is known as state socialism or paternalism, or governmental control of everything. The state socialist seeks to ameliorate and emancipate the wage-laborers by means of law, by legislative enactments. The state socialists demand the right to choose their own rulers. Anarchists would have neither rulers nor lawmakers of any kind. The anarchists seek the same ends [the abolition of wage-slavery] by the abrogation of law, by the abolition of all government, leaving the people free to unite or disunite as fancy or interest may dictate, coercing no one. . . .

An Anarchist by Any Other Name: Albert Parsons and Anarchist Socialism

In the Marx transitional period the workers own the means of production, with a state system to control the distribution. This was a temporary transition period before communism, which is a more radical version of socialism.

The dictionary also claims capitalism is "free-market" but in reality it isn't.

This is the ultimate goal of socialists of all types...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

Free association (communism and anarchism)

You can't rely on the dictionary for definitions of these terms. They don't all agree on the definitions for one thing.

reply to post by ANOK


You are wrong because you said socialism is NOT control by the government and some forms of it ARE!

And where did all the anarchist crap come from?? I never spoke of anarchy...you have anarchy on the brain.
And you are quite misguided...don't trust the dictionary? Maybe I should trust Wiki?

reply to post by Kali74


That was in Hegelian Dialectic. You can pick any two ideologies and pit them against each other and produce a synthesis. You can even pit communists against socialists. Both come out of the same leftist ideology. Hitler hated commies right? He was a socialist.

Try this on for size

jonjayray.tripod.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Corporations are most definitely a capitalist ideology.

Incorporating is a way for capitalists to protect their assets and their capital. If it is privately owned it is capitalism.
Public owned companies are also capitalistic, share holder are private owners, they're not workers.

Corporations protected by the state is fascism, not socialism.

BTW when are you going to tell us what word is defined by 'worker ownership' if it's not socialism?

...multinational corporations epitomize the essence of capitalist development...

Multinational corporations and capitalist development: a critical discourse in microeconomics

Of course you'll just hand-wave this away because the source is left-wing.

Corporate capitalism is a term used in social science and economics to describe a capitalist marketplace characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit.

Corporate capitalism

Socialism is a needs based economic system, not a profit based economic system.

AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

America is a state-capitalist nation.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by ANOK

 

You are wrong because you said socialism is NOT control by the government and some forms of it ARE!

And where did all the anarchist crap come from?? I never spoke of anarchy...you have anarchy on the brain.
And you are quite misguided...don't trust the dictionary? Maybe I should trust Wiki?

The anarchist stuff is the ramblings of Noam Chomsky, a self-described anarcho-socialist-Libertarian(an oxymoron if ever there was one) and he promotes some odd idea of socialism as being more independent than it really is, because as we all know, socialism is collectivism which goes against the spirit of liberty, individual autonomy, and free enterprise, hence why they and their communist cousins hate capitalism. (but somehow are always willing to use Capital from other people to further their agenda).

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The anarchist stuff is the ramblings of Noam Chomsky, a self-described anarcho-socialist-Libertarian(an oxymoron if ever there was one) and he promotes some odd idea of socialism as being more independent than it really is, because as we all know, socialism is collectivism which goes against the spirit of liberty, individual autonomy, and free enterprise, hence why they and their communist cousins hate capitalism. (but somehow are always willing to use Capital from other people to further their agenda).

Libertarian Socialism is another term for anarchism, and has been around since the 1850's, so no it's not Chomsky's ramblings.

I linked to one vid from him that explains terms. How many more times do I have to repeat this, Chomsky is a linguist, if anyone should understand terms it's a linguist. If he was lying he would lose his reputation as a linguist, why would he do that, and why is he still highly regarded? Use some logic.

Libertarian socialism is only an oxymoron because you fail to understand the true meaning of the terms.

Libertarian was first used by anarchists in the 1800's. Socialism is worker ownership. Worker ownership with no state system is Libertarian Socialism, anarchism.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

150 years of Libertarian

Sorry but your whole argument is based on ignorance of the historical use of these terms. You keep trying to argue against ideas formed 150 years ago based on the modern twisted interpretation of terms.

Debating you is a waste of time, because you're not even willing to consider what is being presented to you. Open your mind just a little and let some light in eh?

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You like dictionary definitions, here's one for capitalism...

capitalism
[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]   Example Sentences Origin
cap·i·tal·ism
   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

dictionary.reference.com...

"Anarchism is the no-government system of socialism." Peter Kropotkin Anarchism, p. 46

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Hitler was not a Socialist, he was Fascist. Honestly...I'm just going to end it there because I've seriously had enough of this foolishness and denial and doctrine and if I go on it's going to end with me getting banned. Anok does it better than I can anyway, lol.

I'm a duck because I say so.

reply to post by ANOK


Hitler was a socialist. His verson of socialism was national socialism. International socialism is what is being bandied about in Europ and implemented by our Marxist Fabian socialist Prez.
Socialism is a bridge to communism. Either you know it and are denying it, or you just don't know. All you have to do is read Marx and Lenin to know it though.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Hitler was not a Socialist, he was Fascist. Honestly...I'm just going to end it there because I've seriously had enough of this foolishness and denial and doctrine and if I go on it's going to end with me getting banned. Anok does it better than I can anyway, lol.

I'm a duck because I say so.

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

End it whatever way you wish. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Fascism is just a different version of socialism and Totalitarianism is collectivism and Statism. Both are elements of leftist ideology, and communism is just the extreme. So Hitler's socialism is just a tad to the right of communism. So sorry to burst your bubble. Need I find proof?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Hitler was not a Socialist, he was Fascist. Honestly...I'm just going to end it there because I've seriously had enough of this foolishness and denial and doctrine and if I go on it's going to end with me getting banned. Anok does it better than I can anyway, lol.

I'm a duck because I say so.

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

The Rockefellers funded the Bolsheviks. Does that make the Bolshevik communists capitalists too? I would just like to know.

Please before you make a dern fool of yourself...

Dear Mr. President:

I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited
for the Russian people...
Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William
Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American
International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

As you may be able to guess from the Cyrillic writing accompanying it, it was a Soviet Swastika -- used by the Red Army in its early days. It was worn as a shoulder patch by some Soviet troops. The Swastika too was a socialist symbol long before Hitler became influential. Prewar socialists (including some American socialists) used it on the grounds that it has two arms representing two entwined letters "S" (for "Socialist"). So even Hitler's symbolism was Leftist.

Trying to make fascists out to be "right wing conservatives" in the sense of our political parties is just a Progressive ploy to mix things up and confuse people. They did a great job n'est ce pas?
jonjayray.tripod.com...