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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
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.


Do we have to keep going over this?

National Socialism is fascism, not socialism.

Hitlers fascism was based on the fascism of Mussolini. Go study some European history, this is ridiculous.

Why did Hitler support Franco and his military takeover of Spain after the republic government collapsed? Why did he help appose the socialists? Why were socialists, communists, unionists, and all left-wingers arrested and interned in Germany?

Nazi Germany was nationalist and allowed capitalism. Nationalism is state ownership, socialism is worker ownership.

Again I beg you to go research a little history.


The rise of fascism in Italy and Germany threatened the collective security on which peace in Europe had been built after 1919.


The rise of European fascism and World War 2

Hitler used the term socialism to simply appease the workers, as there was also a rise of socialism in the working class before WWII, that lead to the Spanish revolution. European leaders were scrambling to find ways to maintain control of the economy, propaganda is always the first tool used.

Understand this history and you might understand the terms.


The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism.


Hitler & Socialism


Red triangle—political prisoners: liberals, communists, trade unionists, royalists, social democrats and socialists, Freemasons, anarchists.


Nazi concentration camp badges
edit on 6/15/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
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.


Do we have to keep going over this?

National Socialism is fascism, not socialism.

Hitlers fascism was based on the fascism of Mussolini. Go study some European history, this is ridiculous.

Why did Hitler support Franco and his military takeover of Spain after the republic government collapsed? Why did he help appose the socialists? Why were socialists, communists, unionists, and all left-winger arrested and interned in Germany?

Again I beg you to go research a little history.


The rise of fascism in Italy and Germany threatened the collective security on which peace in Europe had been built after 1919.


The rise of European fascism and World War 2

Hitler used the term socialism to simply appease the workers, as there was also a rise of socialism in the working class before WWII, that lead to the Spanish revolution. European leaders were scrambling to find ways to maintain control of the economy, propaganda is always the first tool used.

Understand this history and you might understand the terms.


Yes! We do until you and others finally get it.

You might be interested to know it was Progressives who embraced Hitler and fascism in general. Hitler got some of his eugenics ideas from the Progressive Margaret Sanger( remember she founded the American Birth Control League, which later changed it's name to Planned Parenthood due to the bad name evoked by Hitler). Give me time and I find a source for that.

From Discover the Networks site

Eugenics was wholly compatible with the progressive era's faith in science, the future, the regulatory potential of the state, and human perfectibility. The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution helped bankroll organizations that sought to advance eugenics. Among the more notable progressives to embrace the practice were the anarco-communist Emma Goldman, NAACP founder W.E.B. Dubois, author H.G. Wells, political scientist Harold Laski, socialist reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb, biology instructor/atheist Edward Aveling, economist John Maynard Keynes, playwright George Bernard Shaw, World Wildlife Fund founder Julian Huxley, sex theorist Havelock Ellis, and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...
Surprise surprise John Maynard Keynes!!!


By 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court had accepted the progressive belief that the state ought to be empowered to determine who should and should not be permitted to reproduce. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court's progressive icon, wrote in 1915 that his "starting point for an ideal for the law" would be the "coordinated human effort ... to build a race."



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

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



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes! We do until you and others finally get it.





You might be interested to know it was Progressives who embraced Hitler and fascism in general. Hitler got some of his eugenics ideas from the Progressive Margaret Sanger( remember she founded the American Birth Control League, which later changed it's name to Planned Parenthood due to the bad name evoked by Hitler). Give me time and I find a source for that.


What has that got to do with what his political system was?

Yes lots of progressives supported fascism, so did most capitalists. They didn't support what Hitler did though.
Until Hitler invaded Poland he was well supported by the establishment as was Mussolini and Franco.

Progressives were not socialists, they simply wanted to clean up government of the corruption.

What has planned parenthood got to do with socialism?

Again your version of these terms comes from common misunderstandings. You have to use the true original meanings that applied during the times we are discussing. You can't look at the 1930's through 2012 eyes and hope to understand it.


edit on 6/15/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


There is no bubble burst here because I know I'm right. Corporations are product of Capitalism. Corporatism is basically Fascism. What we have now is ever increasing power to Corporations. Corporations are not worker owned, they are a group of private owners. Socialism is an economic model in which the people own the means of production. The people that work for Corporations do not own them. Unions and Co-ops are socialist in nature, Corporations are capitalist in nature. Hitler and Mussolini smashed Unions...literally murdered and brutalized them. Mussolini circumvented the Italian Senate and answered directly to Corporations.

If we can agree that economically Socialism is on the Left and Capitalism is on the Right, we agree that Corporations are a product of Capitalism (to deny that fact would be to say that Wall St, several Republican Presidents, Congressmen so on and so on are/were Socialist) then Authoritative Corporations would be what? Fascist and correctly placed on the quadrant in the upper Right.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.



Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely — and correctly — regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg’s great book Liberal Fascism cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the Left, and of the Left’s embrace of the fascists during the 1920s.

Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the Left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W. E. B. Du Bois, as a man of the Left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the Left distanced itself from fascism and its Nazi offshoot — and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the Right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.




www.nationalreview.com...

So, my friend, you and others have been victims of the left's own disinformation tactics.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





There is no bubble burst here because I know I'm right.


You know you are right like I know the sky is red. A rose by any other name smells as sweet. Let's see, who said that, oh yes it was Shakespeare.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a reference to a quotation from William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, meant to say that the names of things do not matter, only what things are.[1]


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 



One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

www.nationalreview.com...

So, my friend, you and others have been victims of the left's own disinformation tactics.


Idiocy. Obama is not Left. Those of us on the Left do tend to see him as a Fascist quite easily, where we don't see him is on the Left, we see him exactly where he is...on the Right. He panders to the Left sure enough but most of his policies are on the Right.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


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)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

How about replying to the substance of my post with an on topic post of your own?


They never address or even show they understand our points. They simply ignore historical fact.

Yeah Obama on the left is a joke.

There is no left-wing in government. The dems are liberals, right of center.

Liberalism is not left-wing. It was sold as left-wing in the 50's to replace the true left. Liberalism is not a threat to the capitalist class, as socialism was. Liberalism doesn't want worker ownership, just a social safety net. We pay for that safety net and the capitalists continue to exploit labour.

Liberalism is not socialism.

Speech by Winston Churchill May 4, 1908. Kinnaird Hall, Dundee...


I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be...


Liberalism And Socialism


edit on 6/15/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 



One of the reasons why both pro-Obama and anti-Obama observers may be reluctant to see him as fascist is that both tend to accept the prevailing notion that fascism is on the political right, while it is obvious that Obama is on the political left.

www.nationalreview.com...

So, my friend, you and others have been victims of the left's own disinformation tactics.


Idiocy. Obama is not Left. Those of us on the Left do tend to see him as a Fascist quite easily, where we don't see him is on the Left, we see him exactly where he is...on the Right. He panders to the Left sure enough but most of his policies are on the Right.


Exactly the point. Just the same as Progressives try to pretend they did not embrace fascism and eugenics in the Progressive era.

You should watch what you call idiocy.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Kali74

How about replying to the substance of my post with an on topic post of your own?


They never address or even show they understand our points. They simply ignore historical fact.

Yeah Obama on the left is a joke.

There is no left-wing in government. The dems are liberals, right of center.

Liberalism is not left-wing. It was sold as left-wing in the 50's to replace the true left. Liberalism is not a threat to the capitalist class, as socialism was. Liberalism doesn't want worker ownership, just a social safety net. We pay for that safety net and the capitalists continue to exploit labour.

Liberalism is not socialism.


I understand your points as clearly as can be understood. Even Hillary called herself a Progressive. So call it what you may, it is still the same stuff.


Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free


Thank you HIllary for clearing this up



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



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


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)


With an on topic post? You are really grasping at straws on that one. Obama and Hillary are both Marxist, they are both Progressive, they are both Socialists.

What is the big deal. why won't you accept that big industrialists and wealthy bankers support the socialist AND the communist system because by themselves they would totally fail. And they fail even with Capital.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I understand your points as clearly as can be understood. Even Hillary called herself a Progressive. So call it what you may, it is still the same stuff.


What has Hilary got to do with it! So what if she calls herself a progressive? Hilary is not left-wing. I don't care what your MSM tells you. Left and right in modern politics is meaningless. There has been no real left-wing in government since before WWII. As I said already Liberalism replaced the left in the 50's. Liberalism became the new-left, but it has nothing to do with traditional socialism that I have been trying to explain to you.

Progressives are not left-wing, the support capitalism, the movement was stated to clean up corruption in government, not abolish it.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I understand your points as clearly as can be understood. Even Hillary called herself a Progressive. So call it what you may, it is still the same stuff.


What has Hilary got to do with it! So what if she calls herself a progressive? Hilary is not left-wing. I don't care what your MSM tells you. Left and right in modern politics is meaningless. There has been no real left-wing in government since before WWII. As I said already Liberalism replaced the left in the 50's. Liberalism became the new-left, but it has nothing to do with traditional socialism that I have been trying to explain to you.

Progressives are not left-wing, the support capitalism, the movement was stated to clean up corruption in government, not abolish it.


Baloney! The Democrat Party is more left wing than ever. Even the CPUSA endorsed Obama. I think some people are just devious in pretending Obama is not Left wing.
And don't forget that Obama and Pelosi endorsed OWS, as well as did the communist party and the Neo Nazis and every other left wing facet of society. Don't forget there are around 70 members of Congress who are also members of DSA, and also let us not forget that Obama's ties to the New Party have been exposed. Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis was communist. Obama's white grandparents were members of The Little Red Church. Obama attended the Liberation Theologist church of Rev Wright who also has ties to Marxist James Cone.
You are not fooling anybody with this nonsense of pretending Obama is right wing, and the Demcrat Party itself is already caught pretending.
azpundit.com...

Obama just received a critical endorsement, The Communist Party USA. The Communist Party USA leader, Sam Webb, explains why he will continue to support Obama and Democrats in 2012. The Communist Party USA has consistently supported and infiltrated the Democratic Party.


Also note, Sam Webb, the leader of the party, called Obama a friend back in 2008.


Sam webb for The People's World

As for the wisdom of a third party, we have always advocated the formation of an independent people's party at the core of which are the working class and labor, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight, etc. It is essential for any deep-going social change. But its realization depends on more than our desire, more than our political-ideological attitude. Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion.


peoplesworld.org...

www.keywiki.org...

You should also know that it is known that the communist party has sought to capture "one of both" of hte main political parties in the US, and that is the Democrat and Republican parties.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


To address Hillary


Barbara Olson, author of Hell to Pay. The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 1999), is a prominent Washington attorney who served as a congressional investigator and as a general counsel in the United States Senate. She was interviewed by Cliff Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, on December 8, 2000. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview.
Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist?

A: I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology...But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families...



Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level?

A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women’s conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have...






www.usasurvival.org...

That's all for now as I do have other things to do today.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, this one.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


What is that, someone else's opinion of Hilary? That is supposed to prove what?

I don't care about Hilary, Marxist or not.

You are arguing mainstream politics, I am trying to debate economic systems.

Once again there is no left-wing in government. The liberals, Dems, are right of center, the Cons further to the right.

Hilary is not demanding worker ownership, only more liberal government.

Again Liberalism is not socialism.

Winston Churchill in a speech, 1908...


To the revolutionary Socialist I do not appeal as the Liberal candidate for Dundee. I recognise that they are perfectly right in voting against me and voting against the Liberals, because Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. [Cheers.]


Liberalism And Socialism

Now Churchill was not left-wing lol. He was most definitely of the right wing establishment, he hated socialists.
He was a member of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party was not socialist, it supported capitalism with a social safety net, as it still does. Again it was sold as the new socialism after WWII, in order to defuse the anti-capitalist attitude of the working class.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


BTW how come you never answer any of my questions?

Like I asked in my reply at the top of this page?

You claim Hitler was socialist, but can't answer why he apposed socialists? You just ignore the question, and I'm sure you will again at some point make that same illogical claim.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


No, this one.


That one what? I am not arguring that corporations are an output of Capitalism. I am merely arguing that socialism and communism both get funding from wealthy capitalists. The literature from Sutton shows that very clearly. The fact that the USSR required loans when under communist rule it could no longer produce and export the amounts of grain it had before should emphasize this point. This is why it is such a pernicious thing with the corporations and understanding why a fabian socialist would not completely do away with them, or why a fascist would not, because they know corporations feed socialism. Why do you think a billionaire such as Soros or Buffet would choose to support and manipulate a President with socialist leanings?
Next time you join OWS rallies and decide to complain about corporate welfare do not complain that corporations are capitalist, because socialism is welfare and it is redistribution of income.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


BTW how come you never answer any of my questions?

Like I asked in my reply at the top of this page?

You claim Hitler was socialist, but can't answer why he apposed socialists? You just ignore the question, and I'm sure you will again at some point make that same illogical claim.


Hitler called his organization National Socialism. Where did he claim to oppose socialists? Maybe you were thinking of communists, because I said that. Shows what you don't know.


Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s 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).


and he hated Capitalists and boureoisie


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 these ‘bourgeois mass meetings’ as the devil shuns holy water.


democraticpeace.wordpress.com...
edit on 16-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join