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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


To my knowledge Churchill was not a Marxist. But then I never said he was, perhaps you think he was liberal. I posted about Hillary claiming to be a Progressive, because that seems to be more radical than liberal. Liberals can believe in certain things which are not necessarily socialist, but of which socialists may agree with in cause. For instance, liberals usually are anti war and pro gay. Leftists are often anti war, but not expressly, only when it suits them, the rest of the time they are just as content in warring as their conservative counterparts. Take FDR for instance. FDR got us into WWII. FDR also gave us the Socialist New Deal. He also confiscated gold in 1933. FDR was a Democrat an d a Progressive. And he was also said to be a Freemason. www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...
edit on 16-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You would have a point IF, Obama weren't increasing the power that Corporations have, IF he weren't siphoning wealth from the middle class up to them. The argument for Obama being a Socialist might make sense if he were giving that power and wealth to Unions, but he isn't...in fact what has he done for unions? When is the last time he acted in favor of unions? He completely ignored Wisconsin. In fact where is any indication that he works for the People and not for the Private Sector?
edit on 16-6-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:24 AM
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.


Partially correct. INTERNATIONAL CAPITALISM, or better yet international state capitalism, is what is spreading throughout the world via the bilderberger group and their secret meetings. To deny this is just as bad as the leftists denying facism is national socialism.

Corporatism is the main branch of capitalism. The other two branches are proprieterships and partnerships!

Sure corporation is an ancient term but it did not apply to business before the middle ages. In ancient times people were craftsmen and traders which denotes proprieterships and partnerships. Real corporatism has been going on since the industrial revolution and should not be stopped. It merely needs to be controlled and to be controlled it means no campaign donations. Freedom of speech in america has been misapplied to irrellevant concepts.
edit on 16/6/12 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 


To my knowledge Churchill was not a Marxist. But then I never said he was, perhaps you think he was liberal. I posted about Hillary claiming to be a Progressive, because that seems to be more radical than liberal. Liberals can believe in certain things which are not necessarily socialist, but of which socialists may agree with in cause. For instance, liberals usually are anti war and pro gay. Leftists are often anti war, but not expressly, only when it suits them, the rest of the time they are just as content in warring as their conservative counterparts. Take FDR for instance. FDR got us into WWII. FDR also gave us the Socialist New Deal. He also confiscated gold in 1933. FDR was a Democrat an d a Progressive. And he was also said to be a Freemason. www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...
edit on 16-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


For christ's sake. FDR was a liberal and a radical liberal at that. But liberals are not progressives(socialism) or revolutionaries(communism). They simply accept capitalism is necessary and go about treating the various symptoms with tons of redundant legislation.

A real progressive supports some form of socialism, a welfare state, workers right to bargain with the employer, heavy taxation for the purpose of redistribution of wealth, fair opportunity, agnostic or spiritual, conditional abortions, heavy regulation of the private sector.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

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.


A welfare system can be totally irrellevant of the eco-political system in place. A welfare state within a capitalist system denotes liberalism, such as in america.

Socialism(mixed economy) rellies less on corporatism than capitalism does. A lot depends on other factors such as taxation and tariffs. The more tariffs collected the less the need for taxation. The most important factor of all is who issues the currency. A currency issued by the government, on behalf of the people, means more revenue for the state/nation and less dependence on taxation.

And yes I do complain about corporate welfare because private companies that perform poorly should not be bailed out either in capitalism or socialism. IT IS FRAUD! PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Partially correct. INTERNATIONAL CAPITALISM, or better yet international state capitalism, is what is spreading throughout the world via the bilderberger group and their secret meetings. To deny this is just as bad as the leftists denying facism is national socialism.

Can you explain how fascism is national socialism and not state capitalism. The problem I see is that Mussolini claims that socialism is dead and that they have come up with a better plan which is state socialism upside down. They call it fascism.

State capitalism

The term state capitalism has various meanings, but is usually described as commercial (profit-seeking) economic activity undertaken by the state with management of the productive forces in a capitalist manner, even if the state is nominally socialist.



The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late 19th century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"



On economic issues, Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini claimed in 1933 that fascism's "path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, [whether the outcome be state capitalism or state socialism] the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."


Now this is the person who coined the term and he even points out how the two are similar but not the same.

I think this is why socialists and communists claim that the USSR and other countries used the names of their movements to disguise state capitalism.
edit on 16-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Can you explain how fascism is national socialism and not state capitalism. The problem I see is that Mussolini claims that socialism is dead and that they have come up with a better plan which is state socialism upside down. They call it fascism.


How could socialism be dead when europeans where dumping their monarchies in favor of socialism and communism? Do you really believe Mussolini would openly brag about state capitalism and how great it would be?

Even today most conservatives avoid labeling themselves because they know their platform is based on elitism.


State capitalism

The term state capitalism has various meanings, but is usually described as commercial (profit-seeking) economic activity undertaken by the state with management of the productive forces in a capitalist manner, even if the state is nominally socialist.



The term itself was in use within the socialist movement from the late 19th century onwards. Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"


Yep I already knew what state capitalism is. The state itself is a corporation and acting on behalf of other big corporations. Can you prove italy and germany were registered corporations like america is?



On economic issues, Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini claimed in 1933 that fascism's "path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, [whether the outcome be state capitalism or state socialism] the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."


The axis powers seem much more socialist than america today. The axis powers lost and the allies get to write history, because after all the victors write history.


Now this is the person who coined the term and he even points out how the two are similar but not the same.

I think this is why socialists and communists claim that the USSR and other countries used the names of their movements to disguise state capitalism.
edit on 16-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


I think communists, who according to the communist manifesto resemble anarchists, see ANY government as a for-profit entity. It must be a mental block to think in this regard and that does not imply I love statism either. I am more for democracy and the fact of the matter is communist countries never got to vote for national elections, only local elections.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
How could socialism be dead when europeans where dumping their monarchies in favor of socialism and communism? Do you really believe Mussolini would openly brag about state capitalism and how great it would be?

Yes, he does so in the Doctrine of Fascism.

Socialism being dead was his opinion and since he had been a socialist I would think he had his reason for believing that.


Yep I already knew what state capitalism is. The state itself is a corporation and acting on behalf of other big corporations. Can you prove italy and germany were registered corporations like america is?

Actually the definition I posted does not state that the state must be a registered corporation. It does state:

By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation,

Italy and Germany were in fact controlling the economy and acting as a single huge corporation, so the definition fits.


The axis powers seem much more socialist than america today. The axis powers lost and the allies get to write history, because after all the victors write history.

But they can't do away with all historical documents which speak for themselves.


I think communists, who according to the communist manifesto resemble anarchists, see ANY government as a for-profit entity. It must be a mental block to think in this regard and that does not imply I love statism either. I am more for democracy and the fact of the matter is communist countries never got to vote for national elections, only local elections.

I was just pointing out the reason that communists and socialists claim, and have been doing so for over 100 years, that the only part of their systems that were used were the names.


edit on 16-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
How could socialism be dead when europeans where dumping their monarchies in favor of socialism and communism? Do you really believe Mussolini would openly brag about state capitalism and how great it would be?

Yes, he does so in the Doctrine of Fascism.

Socialism being dead was his opinion and since he had been a socialist I would think he had his reason for believing that.


Then why does the fascist manifesto posted by others contradict your opinion of what he said?



Actually the definition I posted does not state that the state must be a registered corporation. It does state:

By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation,

Italy and Germany were in fact controlling the economy and acting as a single huge corporation, so the definition fits.


Sorry but I find no evidence of italy or germany being one large corporation. Contrarely I find america being listed as a corporation in the state of delaware. I feel too lazy to trace the information down for you to ignore but I did have it on my old computer.



The axis powers seem much more socialist than america today. The axis powers lost and the allies get to write history, because after all the victors write history.


But they can't do away with all historical documents which speak for themselves.


You failed to prove anything but are very liberal in providing opinions. The historical documents prove national socialism. nationalism + socialism= a mixture of right and left ideologies....mostly left! Anti-monarchies, anti-jews, anti-masonry, pro nationalising of industry, lots of small business with close supervision, hitler himself grew up in poverty and imprissoned before taking office. national socialist workers party.

They were more right than communists though and somewhat religious.



I think communists, who according to the communist manifesto resemble anarchists, see ANY government as a for-profit entity. It must be a mental block to think in this regard and that does not imply I love statism either. I am more for democracy and the fact of the matter is communist countries never got to vote for national elections, only local elections.


I was just pointing out the reason that communists and socialists claim, and have been doing so for over 100 years, that the only part of their systems that were used were the names.


edit on 16-6-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Says a liberal capitalist? The only difference between a liberal and conservative is that the first believes in superficial treatment of the capitalist syndrome versus a free market "anything goes" capitalist. Both liars in my book!



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Then why does the fascist manifesto posted by others contradict your opinion of what he said?

It is the same document so it must be the focus on certain parts. Political ideals are usually built upon existing ideals so they often share parts but it doesn't mean they are the same.


Sorry but I find no evidence of italy or germany being one large corporation. Contrarely I find america being listed as a corporation in the state of delaware. I feel too lazy to trace the information down for you to ignore but I did have it on my old computer.

Again your talking about being "registered" as a corporation which the definition does not say is required.


You failed to prove anything but are very liberal in providing opinions.

The victor writes history but most of the time can't destroy all evidence of what really happened. That is often the case and not just opinion.


Says a liberal capitalist? The only difference between a liberal and conservative is that the first believes in superficial treatment of the capitalist syndrome versus a free market "anything goes" capitalist. Both liars in my book!

Wilhelm Liebknecht, the quote about state socialism really being state capitalism, was a social democrat not a liberal capitalist.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


He is working for the Unions...giving them power and saving their asses...what do you think all the bailouts were for??? They were for Union controlled companies ie GM< Chrysler.....to save Union workers and give the Unions their kickbacks for getting him elected and keeping him in power......now the government has it's paws deep into huge corporations responsible for the means of production in the US........IE : Socialism at it's finest!!!



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The reason he ignored Wisconsin is because it was about public employee unions...big difference from labor unions...labor unions are where the control of corporations is at.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK
 


To my knowledge Churchill was not a Marxist. But then I never said he was, perhaps you think he was liberal.


Who said Churchill was a Marxist? I wonder if you are even reading what I say, or are you just skimming for pertinent points to jump on out of context? Churchill hated socialism, he called it a philosophy of failure.

I don't think Churchill was a liberal, he was. He was a member of the Conservative Party 1900-1904, then he joined the Liberal Party and became Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Remember Liberal doesn't mean what you think it does now. Liberals are not socialists and not left-wing.


Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not only a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle. There are many steps we shall take which our Socialist opponents or friends, whichever they like to call themselves, will have to take with us; but there are immense differences of principle and of political philosophy between the views we put forward and the views they put forward.


Winston Churchill on Liberalism and Socialism


Most liberals are capitalists who believe in strong social programs. Liberals and socialists, in this country, will sometimes share similar viewpoints and at times have opposing viewpoints...


Are liberalism and socialism the same for americans?


edit on 6/16/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


What new power do Unions have let alone because of Obama? GM is probably about the only one on the bailout list that has a Union, the majority of that list is Banks.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Kali74
 


He is working for the Unions...giving them power and saving their asses...what do you think all the bailouts were for??? They were for Union controlled companies ie GM< Chrysler.....to save Union workers and give the Unions their kickbacks for getting him elected and keeping him in power......now the government has it's paws deep into huge corporations responsible for the means of production in the US........IE : Socialism at it's finest!!!


3+ trillion dollars to save the unions and their employees? You really believe this?

Probably not, but a conservative will never admit to corporate welfare and how that money flew to asia to jump start even more offshoring.

Sure some money went to unions, but probably a few drops in the bucket compared to what I said.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The fact churchill and roosevelt were radical liberals and stalin was a statist communist pretty much proves hitler and mussolini were national socialists. I rest my case.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ANOK
 


The fact churchill and roosevelt were radical liberals and stalin was a statist communist pretty much proves hitler and mussolini were national socialists. I rest my case.


What?

Mussolini wasn't a National Socialist, he was the founder of fascism, he named the system.

National Socialism came after Mussolini's fascism, Hitler based his National Socialism on the fascism of Mussolini.

Case closed lol.


In Munich in southern Germany, another veteran -- young Austrian agitator Adolf Hitler -- assumed leadership in 1921 of a small political party, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Its name made clear a joint commitment to national revival and radical social change.

If fascism had just remained a small fringe movement, the history of the post-Great War years would have been very different. But Mussolini's new party, through a combination of effective propaganda and street violence, soon became a contender for power. In October 1922, after threatening a march on Rome, Mussolini was offered the premiership. Within four years, he had subverted parliamentary rule, destroyed the Italian left, and established a one-party state with himself as Il Duce (The Leader).

Fascism was imitated in every European state. It traded on each country's grievances but also promised a bright utopian future. Militarism was a central feature of Fascist appeal, and thousands of young Europeans flocked into the movements and their paramilitary organizations.

In 1923, at the height of the European inflationary crisis, Adolf Hitler moved to imitate Benito Mussolini. In addition to planning a march on Berlin, he staged a coup in Munich on November 8-9 as a prelude to a national seizure of power. His putsch was suppressed, and Hitler was imprisoned. However, he emerged a year later, reestablished his leadership of the National Socialist movement, and launched a campaign of violent anti-Marxism side-by-side with a struggle for parliamentary seats. Both Mussolini and Hitler were unwilling to accept the postwar settlement. Their rhetoric suggested that a "new order" was needed to replace a liberal international system that they regarded as decadent.


Europe After World War I: November 1918-August 1931


Italian fascism and German Nazism held a relationship involving both mutual fascist agendas but also a contentious relationship with each other. Both reject liberalism, democracy and Marxism.[1] Usually supported by the far right, fascism is historically anti-communist, anti-conservative and anti-parliamentary.


Italian Fascism and German Nazism


...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....


Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932


edit on 6/16/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Mussolini was a fascist and therefore anti-socialist:

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle.



Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism.

Again from the Doctrine of Fascism.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


AGAIN...


Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (Italian pronunciation: [beˈniːto musːoˈliːni]; 29 July 1883 – 28 April 1945) was an Italian politician who led the National Fascist Party, ruling the country from 1922 to his ousting in 1943, and is credited with being one of the key figures in the creation of fascism.

Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini fought in World War I as an ardent nationalist and created the Fasci di Combattimento in 1919, catalyzing his nationalist and socialist beliefs in the Fascist Manifesto, published in 1921.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Mussolini was a fascist who got his ideas on revolution FROM KARL MARX... SUPPOSELY because of this he was kicked from the socialist party because he believed in the idea of revolution from KARL MARX, which is why he supported WWI(yes that was the main idea he got from Marx)... He disagreed with Marx on many other things, as well as with other socialists...

ALL Mussolini knew was socialism, and in his Fascist manifesto any intellingent person can see that he was a LEFTWINGER, a SOCIALIST who decided to start his OWN branch of SOCIALISM...


The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

en.wikipedia.org...

Mussolini, as well as Hitler were SOCIALISTS/FASCISTS...

socialists/communists and other leftwingers CONTINUOUSLY forget the fact that ALL branches of socialism have different ideas which is why you need so many branched to identify each idea/ideas...

Even at the time LEFTWINGERS were on the side of Hitler and Mussolini...


edit on 17-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Let's actually read another few sentence and see whether fascism is socialist or not...


If the bourgeoisie - I then said - believe that they have found in us their lightening-conductors, they arc mistaken. We must go towards the people... We wish the working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business... We will fight both technical and spiritual rear-guirdism... Now that the succession of the re­gime is open we must not be fainthearted. We must rush forward; if the present regime is to be superseded we must take its place. The right of succession is ours, for we urged the country to enter the war and we led it to victory... The existing forms of political representation cannot satisfy us; we want direst representation of the several interests... It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!. I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism

www.worldfuturefund.org...

Corporations do and can exist within socialism/communism... "cooperative enterprises"...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join