The Socialist Mask of Marxism

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Well he had been a socialist and even says so in the doctrine but he saw it fail and turned against it. He even admits to taking from the movement but that doesn't mean it is the same. The framers of the constitution also borrowed from British common law and the Magna Carta, but that doesn't mean the system that they were putting in place was the same as the one they were revolting against.

As for your second post I really don't see your point, corporations can and do exist in both socialism/communism and they have also existed in the US (everyone's favorite example of capitalism), throughout its entire existence. With different restrictions at different times, but there nonetheless.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Once again you can't have nationalism and socialism at the same time as they are both economic systems, and only one economic system can be dominant, so that WIki quote contradicts itself.

Mussolini's fascism called for nationalism, state owns and controls the means of production. He did not call for worker ownership, socialism. There was no worker ownership in fascism, it is a system where the state has the ultimate power over individuals, socialist or capitalist. Even though they did allow some private ownership.

Socialism once again is worker ownership.

And again corporations are capitalist, they are owned and controlled by private individuals or groups. Capitalists incorporate to protect their personal wealth, and other reasons. If you are in a corporation and your company goes bankrupt no one can take your personal wealth. Corporations are treated as people, so the corporation itself is taken to court and is liable, not the owners. It's a way for capitalists to protect themselves from being financially responsible if their company fails.

Socialism doesn't use corporations. It has no reason to.

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts.

www.law.cornell.edu...

It's a social safety net for capitalists.

reply to post by ANOK


Oh boy, oh boy ANOK trying to spread more and more lies?... National SOCIALISM can exist together, and has existed. Mussolini called for ALL CLASSES to work together for the benefit of ALL/the state/nation...

Hitler did the same, except for what he saw as the Aryan nation which it really wasn't.

Anyway, ONCE AGAIN...

so·cial·ism
noun ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of SOCIALISM

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


2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
...

www.merriam-webster.com...

Under socialism the means of production is controlled and owned by the STATE... Under OTHER branches of socialism it is CLAIMED that the worker controls, and owns the means of production, but guess WHAT THE NUMBER ONE RULE OF SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM IS?... ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED... Now let's read EXACTLY what Marx said about what constitutes as "PRIVATE PROPERTY"...

Karl Marx
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Property and Communism
Re. p. XXXIX. [This refers to the missing part of the second manuscript. - Ed.] The antithesis between lack of property and property, so long as it is not comprehended as the antithesis of labour and capital, still remains an indifferent antithesis, not grasped in its active connection, in its internal relation, not yet grasped as a contradiction. It can find expression in this first form even without the advanced development of private property (as in ancient Rome, Turkey, etc.). It does not yet appear as having been established by private property itself. But labour, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labour, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction – hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution.
...

www.marxists.org...

Labour, as in anything the worker can produce, or harvest is considered PRIVATE PROPERTY in socialism/communism...

And this is why ALL socialist/communist nations ALWAYS end up with THE STATE owning and controlling the means of production "in the name of the workers"...

Give it up ANOK, the TRUTH will always win...

Originally posted by ANOK


Once again you can't have nationalism and socialism at the same time as they are both economic systems, and only one economic system can be dominant, so that WIki quote contradicts itself.
....

WRONG...Nationalism is a POLITICAL ideology, not an economic system...

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

The more you write, the more obvious that you don't know what you are talking about... Give it up already...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Oh boy, didn't we go over that dictionary definition once, or even twice?

The term was defined long before that dictionary, and has had tons of BS baggage attached to it.

There are different ways of implementing socialism, but the one thing that all have in common is worker ownership.

Socialist ownership of the means of production is ownership by all workers.

THE SOCIALISM WEB SITE

What Socialism is: "Collective ownership and democratic control of the material means of production by the workers and the people."

A Brief Introduction to Socialism

Socialism entails ownership of the socialized means of production by the workers engaged in the production (see: Worker cooperative) and social, or worker control in the appropriation of the socially produced surplus product (profit), either in the form of economic planning and planned investment, or by autonomous worker cooperatives.

Socialization (economics)

Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would collectively own and democratically manage them.

SOCIALISM—ITS MEANING AND PROMISE

"Socialism is the idea that the working class, the class that produces the profits, the wealth, the cars, houses, planes, steel, should take over and run things collectively, democratically, for the benefit of the majority (who also "just happen" to be workers too).

What is the difference between socialism and communism?

Socialism by contrast is a social system in which every able bodied person is, was or will be a worker. These workers commonly own and control the means of production (this is the characteristic form of public ownership). Thus in socialism we have, in a perfectly literal sense, a classless society for there is no division between human beings along class lines.

ECONOMIC JUSTICE AND WELFARE

Didn't even have to use large text...

reply to post by ANOK


Stop it already, you have been caught several times lying through your teeth... Writing more nonsensical BS will not make you right.

There are MANY branches of socialism, and in some it is CLAIMED that the owner controls and owns the means of production, but this is NOT TRUE, since the main rule of socialism and communism is ABOLITION OF ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY...

In itself in socialism the STATE owns and controls the means of production, it is in other branches of socialism that "supposedly the worker can control and own the means of production", but this is not true...

You don't know the difference between socialism and communism, and you BELEIVE that NATIONALISM is an "economic system" when in fact it is a "political ideology"...

Stop wasting people's time.

Socialism and communism have been tried SEVERAL times, and they all end up in the same thing.. SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIPS...

Stop the lying already...

I know, and most of us know that "today's socialists" or communists LOVE to LIE. Changing the definitions of socialism/communism, adding things they "think" would attract new people, but in reality the truth can be found by ANYONE... Even if RICH socialists/communists have been working hard at rewritting the history of their diseased ideologies...

Socialism/communism WILL ALWAYS spawn socialist dictatorship, because "in the name of the worker" every right can be trampled, and liberty can be taken away "for the good of the collective and the good of the revolution", even when the "crime" committed is WANTING FREEDOM...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Labeling someone a liar just because they disagree with you is uncalled for. It is not his fault that your intellect can't grasp what is obvious to most people. Unfortunately for us all, I think we will get to see Capitalism in it's most destructive form become our new reality, which is Fascism. That will be a hollow I told you so, but I do hope you remember it...maybe only then will you be able to see that your all or nothing thinking doesn't do yourself or anyone else any good. My greatest fear is that the Capitalist puppet masters in control now will have successfully labeled everything wrong as Left and Socialist once again completely enabling the world to repeat the same old mistakes.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Once again you can't have nationalism and socialism at the same time as they are both economic systems, and only one economic system can be dominant, so that WIki quote contradicts itself.

absolutely wrong. socialism is an economic system and nationalism is to protect your economy and borders from imperialism, while trying to expand it possibly. Nationalism in the extreme form is belligerance to other nations.

Mussolini's fascism called for nationalism, state owns and controls the means of production. He did not call for worker ownership, socialism. There was no worker ownership in fascism, it is a system where the state has the ultimate power over individuals, socialist or capitalist. Even though they did allow some private ownership.

well in the soviet union which was officially a socialist republic everything was STILL nationalised on behalf of the people. you keep confusing socialism with communism. communism is really anarchy and nothing else according to the communist manifesto. if the workers DIRECTLY own the means of production and there is no central government, how is it not anarchy??????

Socialism once again is worker ownership.

yes worker ownership but the government MANAGES everything.

And again corporations are capitalist, they are owned and controlled by private individuals or groups. Capitalists incorporate to protect their personal wealth, and other reasons. If you are in a corporation and your company goes bankrupt no one can take your personal wealth. Corporations are treated as people, so the corporation itself is taken to court and is liable, not the owners. It's a way for capitalists to protect themselves from being financially responsible if their company fails.

AGREED! but with mild socialism(western european style) in a mixed economy, corporations are allowed to exist and closely monitored/regulated. There is no corporatism with communism or anarchy.

Socialism doesn't use corporations. It has no reason to.

The law treats a corporation as a legal "person" that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders. The legal independence of a corporation prevents shareholders from being personally liable for corporate debts.

www.law.cornell.edu...

It's a social safety net for capitalists.

in a free market capitalist system the government is run by corporations and we call this state capitalism. the people who like this are conservatives. liberals attempt to superficially treat the capitalist syndrome with hypocritical legislation and tons of it, that only apply to small and medium business and the big business gets a free ride.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Socialism and communism have been tried SEVERAL times, and they all end up in the same thing.. SOCIALIST DICTATORSHIPS...

yes and the reason for that is to PROTECT ITSELF from stupid masons, zionists, monarchs, rich snobs, etc.

big problems require big solutions!

Stop the lying already...

and people like you are not lying when you call obama a socialist and the socialists come out and look at you puzzled to death with your ignorance? you have to learn the difference between a liberal and a progressive.

I know, and most of us know that "today's socialists" or communists LOVE to LIE. Changing the definitions of socialism/communism, adding things they "think" would attract new people, but in reality the truth can be found by ANYONE... Even if RICH socialists/communists have been working hard at rewritting the history of their diseased ideologies...

conservatives do the same thing. liberals and conservatives calling each other names would be hillarious if not for how completly wreckful BOTH ideologies are to national sovereignty and to the well being of the citizens.

Socialism/communism WILL ALWAYS spawn socialist dictatorship, because "in the name of the worker" every right can be trampled, and liberty can be taken away "for the good of the collective and the good of the revolution", even when the "crime" committed is WANTING FREEDOM...

edit on 18-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Absolutely wrong! Social democracies not only allow elections but they also ENCOURAGE them!

Even in russia with the statist communist dictatorship, the central government allowed local elections.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
absolutely wrong. socialism is an economic system and nationalism is to protect your economy and borders from imperialism, while trying to expand it possibly. Nationalism in the extreme form is belligerance to other nations.

Nope...

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 doesn't have to have a state. How many more times does this have to be repeated....

"Anarchism is STATELESS socialism", Mikhail Bakunin, one of the founding fathers of Anarchism.

Socialism can be stateless, so no nationalisation is not socialism, it is government/state ownership.

Socialism is an economic, not political system, whereby the workers own the means of production.

well in the soviet union which was officially a socialist republic everything was STILL nationalised on behalf of the people. you keep confusing socialism with communism. communism is really anarchy and nothing else according to the communist manifesto. if the workers DIRECTLY own the means of production and there is no central government, how is it not anarchy??????

The Soviet Union was never officially socialist.

Communism is a form of socialism just like anarchism is. Communism and anarchism are radical versions of socialism. Socialism is worker ownership, both communism and anarchism support worker ownership...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production"

Libertarian Socialism

The soviet union had nationalised industry, some call it state-capitalism because it is not ownership by the workers. In a socialist nation the state would not own the means of production, the workers would, otherwise it's not socialism it is nationalism.

yes worker ownership but the government MANAGES everything.

Not true, workers own and control their own workplaces, government has nothing to do with it...

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.

www.spunk.org...

AGREED! but with mild socialism(western european style) in a mixed economy, corporations are allowed to exist and closely monitored/regulated. There is no corporatism with communism or anarchy.

Europe is not socialist it is liberal. Please learn the difference between socialism and liberalism.

Socialists want worker ownership, liberals want state intervention in the economy and a social safety net.

in a free market capitalist system the government is run by corporations and we call this state capitalism. the people who like this are conservatives. liberals attempt to superficially treat the capitalist syndrome with hypocritical legislation and tons of it, that only apply to small and medium business and the big business gets a free ride.

Capitalism is not free-market, that is a myth. If corporations run the government that is fascism. State-capitalism is another term for nationalisation.

Nationalization and the Background of Russian Capitalism

Again Liberals are not socialists. Liberalism was sold as the new socialism by the right after WWII. Before WWII the liberal and socialists were not even comrades. Liberalism is not socialism or even left-wing, it is right of center.

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.]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 have to 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, Liberal Party candidate for Dundee, May 4, 1908. Kinnaird Hall, Dundee

www.winstonchurchill.org...

reply to post by ANOK


Do you know the difference between nationalism and nationalisation? When someone says "marie is a nationalist" what do you assume? Nationalism is the opposite of internationalism and nationalisation is the opposite of privatisation. Nationalism is mostly a political ideology while nationalisation is mostly an economic ideology.

Socialism doesn't have to have a state. How many more times does this have to be repeated....

Anarchism is STATELESS socialism", Mikhail Bakunin, one of the founding fathers of Anarchism.

Anarchism is actually extreme right ideology and has nothing to do with socialism. The more right you go the smaller the government(even no government) and the farther left you go the bigger the government(controls everything such as communism). Forget the communist manifesto as it was written by priory of sions idiots(luciferian masons) who are masquarading as zionists today. Associating anarchism to socialism is an oxymoron.

The Soviet Union was never officially socialist.

Communism is a form of socialism just like anarchism is. Communism and anarchism are radical versions of socialism. Socialism is worker ownership, both communism and anarchism support worker ownership...

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics......it was a union of communist republican nations under a central statist government. Communism is full socialism(god I hate using socialism here) where everything belongs to the state and theoretically to the people. Industry from top to bottom was fully nationalised.

The soviet union had nationalised industry, some call it state-capitalism because it is not ownership by the workers. In a socialist nation the state would not own the means of production, the workers would, otherwise it's not socialism it is nationalism.

So who is the state then and what is its purpose? "A government by the people and for the people"???

Not true, workers own and control their own workplaces, government has nothing to do with it...

So what does the government do then? Do we need a government at all? Anarchists say NO!

Europe is not socialist it is liberal. Please learn the difference between socialism and liberalism.

During the last 20 years europe has trasformed from progressive politics to liberal politics thanks to the US of A.

Socialists want worker ownership, liberals want state intervention in the economy and a social safety net.

There is a mixed economy and then there is communism. Traditionally a mixed economy has been used interchangeably with socialism. Only the soviet union called itself socialist and a lot of that has to do with the BS of the communist manifesto.

Conservative=free market capitalism, Liberal=controlled capitalism, Progressive=Socialism, Revolutionary=Communist, Anarchist=No government aka tribalism.

The communist manifesto was written from an anarchist prospective because it was fight of the beuorguise against the proletariat. Everyone always hated government because traditionally the government always oppressed the people.....as well as the church!

I am much more interested in the practical meaning of words rather than the technical definitions.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

I know, and most of us know that "today's socialists" or communists LOVE to LIE. Changing the definitions of socialism/communism, adding things they "think" would attract new people, but in reality the truth can be found by ANYONE... Even if RICH socialists/communists have been working hard at rewritting the history of their diseased ideologies...

Socialism/communism WILL ALWAYS spawn socialist dictatorship, because "in the name of the worker" every right can be trampled, and liberty can be taken away "for the good of the collective and the good of the revolution", even when the "crime" committed is WANTING FREEDOM...

edit on 18-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Despite all your blinded demonisation of the left, the right has killed INFINITELY MORE people in wars the last 2,000 years in the name of religion and imperialism than the left. Probably like a 100:1 ratio to be polite sir......

Just think back to the holy crusades, greek and roman empires, british/spanish/french/portuguese monarchies, american imperialism of the middle east attacking iraq twice--then afghanistan, israel and all the arab nations hating each other due to mainstream religion(the church).

Right wingers such as yourself are quite short sighted with extremely selective/biased memory. Forget the past and only focus on hitler and stalin.

Capitalism is based on exploitation, plain and simple! How many children in africa and asia have starved to death? How many people have been killed in south america by the cia to prevent socialism or communism and how many people have been set back by the roman catholic church?

How many kids have been molested by the catholic church?

Who wants radical islam in the middle east? Who wants radical judaism for the state of israel?

Why do you have to believe in a gaotu to become a mason and be a highely esteemed professional?

Maybe masonry pushes mainstream religion and capitalism in the same package? Maybe masonry was founded on the knight templars who moved to switzerland and encourage annonymous banking as money laundering for narcotic trafficking and tax evasion from all over the world???

Maybe masonry is covering up the ufo-alien activity since it is the main secret society throughout the world that prefers religious dogma over truth?

Maybe masons are supressing free energy devices?

It is the right hand path......the evil path! Not saying the empty left hand path is better but common on.......

reply to post by ANOK


There is national socialism and International socialism. You could benefit from more research if you want to convince people.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

There is national socialism and International socialism. You could benefit from more research if you want to convince people.

What lol?

I'm not talking about national in that context lol. My research is fine, maybe you need to comprehend what I'm saying a little better.

It's Nationalisation, not national or international. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just correct your mistakes.

The country I grew up in had a lot of nationalised industries, most were sold off to private owners by Thatcher in the 80's, please don't try to tell me I don't know what nationalisation is...

Nationalisation

Most of the UK's major strategic heavy industries and public utilities were nationalised between 1946 and the early 1950s, only to be returned to the private sector between 1979 and 1990....

Nationalisation

The ONLY connection nationalisation has with socialism is the temporary transition period of Marxism, where industry is nationalised, owned and controlled by the state, in order to make the move to socialism, worker ownership.

Read the darn 'CommyFesto' and you would understand that. Understanding it doesn't mean you support it.

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. III, p.26.

Read this and tell me nationalisation doesn't mean state ownership....

Economics of Nationalisation

(and no that isn't from a 'left-wing' source, it's college economics)

reply to post by ANOK


what's the problem then because nationalizing private businesses is socialist. Just ask Maxine Watters



I don't understand your issue? You are saying that national socialism isn't really socialism, but then you say nationalisation of industry is, and somehow you think that I do not think that nationalization of industry is socialism, but I have never said that. Fabian socialism is implementation of socialism in increments. What that means is that there is a process whereby full socialism hasn't been achieved yet, but socialist programs are in place.
If you look at the comments of Maxine Watters, one can easily perceive that while our country is still operating with private businesses, the plan is to continually nationalize industry. Obama has indeed been trying to do that, with banking, with the auto industry, and with oil, but the oil companies are resistant. The American people caught on to what Obama and his socialist/communist buddies were doing.

If businesses in your country were being sold off to private interests, then that is privatisation. Unfortunately what is happening in the world is both the nationalizing of private industry and the privatising of public DEBT created by the Statist monsters.

reply to post by ANOK


ONce again, since you are having such a hard time grasping this, collective ownership means State ownership, because the State is the collective ruled by an elite. No one person has private property in communism, and socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism. Therefore one has to realize that during the process of bringing communism, there are still some private functions. WILL YOU FINALLY UNDERSTAND THIS POINT?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

If you look at the comments of Maxine Watters, one can easily perceive that while our country is still operating with private businesses, the plan is to continually nationalize industry. Obama has indeed been trying to do that, with banking, with the auto industry, and with oil, but the oil companies are resistant.

Prove it. I mean literally prove it, not with assumptions, conjecture, belief systems...actual proof. Show some legislation that directly or even indirectly points to this. You can't because it doesn't exist, because the opposite is true... more money and power is being put into Corporate/Big Business/Bank hands than ever before in our history.

Obama had the perfect opportunity to nationalize some our biggest banks and financial institutions. What did he do? He gave them money and let them walk with not even criminal investigations by his DoJ.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ANOK

 

ONce again, since you are having such a hard time grasping this, collective ownership means State ownership, because the State is the collective ruled by an elite. No one person has private property in communism, and socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism. Therefore one has to realize that during the process of bringing communism, there are still some private functions. WILL YOU FINALLY UNDERSTAND THIS POINT?

ruled by an elite? This is extremely debateable...........

"a government by the people and for the people" is the ideal!

I will admit I have not lived for long periods of time either with socialism or communism so I cannot speak with personal experience, but a lot depends on the central banking structure and tariff system in place. If the central bank was public and lots of tarrifs were in place then taxation would be relatively low, people would be employed by the state and work decent hours for good pay with strong union support, good vacation periods and respect.

The state does not have to be tyrannical but that is what happens if the people fear the government, rather than the government fearing the people. Someone always has the upper hand as it is the rule of the jungle mentality and humans are no exception to this rule.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

If businesses in your country were being sold off to private interests, then that is privatisation. Unfortunately what is happening in the world is both the nationalizing of private industry and the privatising of public DEBT created by the Statist monsters.

edit on 19-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

The bold text is absolutely wrong! The exact opposite is true and a cursory glance at european or american economies should prove that without a shadow of doubt! Everything has been privatised and the debt has been nationalised!

It really seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing and purposefully spreading misinformation.