Socialism: The Tool of the Nobility

reply to post by JNathanK

Well, I'm not arguing what socialist leaders actually do in practice, just what they say. They claim to want to create a classless society of economically empowered proletarians....

Actually what they want to do is get rid of the middle class that threatens their position. They want a two class society. RULERS and SERFS.

Note how the serfs are NOT allowed to own property.

Socialism + Fascism + Communism +
Capitalism = New World Order there is no need to be subservient to no form of government, or religon, whenever there is a superiority complex, people will be manipulated..

reply to post by JNathanK

So erase the problem, which is government, go back to independent communities, all forms of government will control, and manipulate the people, government has brainwashed the people to think that they need it, we dont need government, just like we dont need God.....

reply to post by Pejeu

Oh, really?

The United States are a classless society?

Yes, actually, it is.

A "class" in society is a social hierarchy established by law.

A serf was a serf for life, because the law said so.

In the US, we have no such laws. It even says in the Constitution that no one may receive a title of nobility for this reason.

But, we must have classes in society because rich people exist, right?

I mean, you could become rich. There is no law stating that you must earn a set income for the rest of your life.

reply to post by Iamuniversalcreator


Even in your independent communities you will have a government. Although I applaud the push to localism which is generally more responsive unless, of course, you get a despot.

Europe isn't Socialist.

Socialism is classless.

The post is wrong.

The only countries coming close to Socialism are Scandanavian countries which in the case of Norway have no national debt as rich are taxed 86% so it enjoys some of the best living standards in the world.

Also no idea why you're using welfare as an example of socialists controlling people as Socialism states welfare is a tool used by the ruling oligarchy to stop the proletariat having a revolution for the failures of Capitalism.

Sounds like you think anything left wing = Socialist.

bastion
Europe isn't Socialist.

Socialism is classless.

The post is wrong.

The only countries coming close to Socialism are Scandanavian countries which in the case of Norway have no national debt as rich are taxed 86% so it enjoys some of the best living standards in the world.

Also no idea why you're using welfare as an example of socialists controlling people as Socialism states welfare is a tool used by the ruling oligarchy to stop the proletariat having a revolution for the failures of Capitalism.

Sounds like you think anything left wing = Socialist.

edit on 30-10-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

You are controlled by the oligarchy. Do they live with the standards as you or are they rich and elite? No Lovenskiold ... Treschow ... Wedel-Jarlsberg? No exclusive schools for the elites? And they don't use the Welfare State to enforce equality on the rest of you while they live how they like more or less?

Basically all welfare does is take from those who make to give to those who don't/can't. I have no problem Giving to those who can't, but I have a big problem giving to those who don't.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx

reply to post by ketsuko


That's my point, there's still a ruling oligarchy/born to rule basis n Europe, we're not Socialist at all. I we were Socialist there'd be no oligarchy or welfare.

The number of Socialist politicians in Europe is well under 100 and hold next to no influence. Neo-liberalism rules throughout Europe which prioritises free markets over Socialism. In the UK there's not a single Socialist MP and 75% of the MPs we have are millionaires, most from elite schools - they serve capitalism, not socialism.

ketsuko
reply to post by StellarX

 

Because the Fed is unconstitutional. It shouldn't exist in this country.

And the free market in this country also hasn't existed for a very long time.

We've allowed the government to step in and make it very, very difficult for there to be true competition. It advantages the very, very large at the expense of everyone else. Many are mistaken in thinking government does this for our protection. "Oh, we NEED the EPA! Oh, we NEED the USDA and the FDA! We HAVE to have licenses for everything ..." But most of what these agencies do is drive little businessmen out of competition and only the very large survive, and with every new round of rules in the name of "protecting" you, more businesses are closed leaving less competition for the big guys who get richer.

Do you see how the system accumulated power to itself because it really isn't a free market?

Maybe if there was true competition and lots of little dogs, it would be much, much harder for the gross accumulations of wealth you so abhor.

Is a free market one where fraud and theft are prevented and/or punished and undone, to whatever extent they can be?

You do realise banking is legalised fraud and counterfeiting, don't you?

All banking, not just central banking?

Guess you don't.

crimvelvet
Actually what they want to do is get rid of the middle class that threatens their position. They want a two class society. RULERS and SERFS.

Note how the serfs are NOT allowed to own property.

What middle class? The top 10~20%? The rest are bloody paupers, for #'s sake.

They are in no position to threaten anyone.

LewsTherinThelamon
Yes, actually, it is.

A "class" in society is a social hierarchy established by law.

A serf was a serf for life, because the law said so.

In the US, we have no such laws. It even says in the Constitution that no one may receive a title of nobility for this reason.

But, we must have classes in society because rich people exist, right?

I mean, you could become rich. There is no law stating that you must earn a set income for the rest of your life.

You are so clever it boggles my mind.

The entire world is a two-tier class based society.

You have the money power class, the conjunctive, financier class, the establishment defender/enforcer class, the pseudoworker/fence class (all the bull# jobs that produce no real value or benefit as well as the people who provide personal services to the money power and financier classes', services that cannot be performed or rendered from the other side of the world) and the worker class.

But you can boilt all this down to just two classes:

1. the money power class.

2. everyone else, who actually have to work or at least pretend to work for a living.

You say the money power class hath not the benefit of the law?

You mean banks aren't allowed, by law, to legally commit fraud and counterfeiting? To issue fictitious cash out of thin air each time they issue a loan?

Therefore, the people who own the banking system are not, implicitly if not explicitly, royalty, ruling monarchs?

What planet do you spend most of your time on?

ketsuko
You are controlled by the oligarchy. Do they live with the standards as you or are they rich and elite? No Lovenskiold ... Treschow ... Wedel-Jarlsberg? No exclusive schools for the elites? And they don't use the Welfare State to enforce equality on the rest of you while they live how they like more or less?

Basically all welfare does is take from those who make to give to those who don't/can't. I have no problem Giving to those who can't, but I have a big problem giving to those who don't.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx

But you have no problem whatsoever with legalised fraud and counterfeiting (how those who literally "make" the money, as you yourself put it, make their money).

That is to say... you have no problem whatsoever with banks.

Banking is legalised fraud and counterfeiting.

Were anyone else to do with anything else what banks do with money they would go to gaol.

But it's somehow perfectly legal, even morally wholesome, when banks do it.

Yet you have a real big problem with welfare.

How da # do you think we have such a skewed distribution of wealth in society?

Because we live in a class based society.

Wherein a few people may legally commit fraud and counterfeiting without any personal liability or responsibility and the vast majority can't.

FreeMason
"The Top 20% has more wealth than 90% of Americans think they SHOULD have."

I didn't know that the idea of liberty was that you had a right to pursue only what others think you should have.

"You have a right to the pursuit of happiness others will allow you". Oh never mind, it was right there in the Constitution all along.

edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Well that can be a very real reality however. For many money and the law are nothing but a high walled fort. Keep the grunts out in the fields half broke with their nose to the ground chasing federal reserve notes all day.

True social democracies, which is what I call socialism (and political science models do to), as opposed to communism (as we know it as its enacted in the world, different than the actual ideology) and fascism, is the only form of democracy that IS democracy, and we're certainly not using that word as direct versus representative versus proportional. I consider proportional which creates more women in politics AND more parties, not all mainstream that actually get votes, and those votes count, to be far better form of democracy, but not Australia's model, Norways is the one that is the best.

True social democracies, empower the people and don't have the scarsity extremes that ours does, and that communisms does.

My friend who escaped communistic hungary before the wall fell, with her family, said that the closest party that was like communism was the conservatives, the far right. Because she worked like a slave, and had vcr to show for it, the only difference was lack of line ups. But there was very poor wages and very poor services and unfettered price rises under conservative parties dog eat dog policies and corporate slavery. THAT is what eastern europe communism was truly like, living under the far right.

The whole world would be highly educated, very progressive, empowered and with a voice, under Norways system.

reply to post by Unity_99



Only it wasn't the "far right" it was classic communist control of the "means of production" and thus everything else.

Iamuniversalcreator
Socialism + Fascism + Communism +
Capitalism = New World Order there is no need to be subservient to no form of government, or religon, whenever there is a superiority complex, people will be manipulated..

if capitalism is so great, why do we have 47 million poor people out of a population of 320 million in the richest country in the world, and why do socialist countries like Sweden, Norway, finland, Denmark, Netherlands, have the best societies for people to live in. socialism is about people working together for the betterment of everyone, that's all it is, not everything has to have a profit structure to it.

reply to post by Pejeu

You mean banks aren't allowed, by law, to legally commit fraud and counterfeiting? To issue fictitious cash out of thin air each time they issue a loan?

Therefore, the people who own the banking system are not, implicitly if not explicitly, royalty, ruling monarchs?

You are correct. We have allowed private bankers to usurp control of the money supply in many countries.

My point was that, there were actual caste systems throughtout history that had actual classes that were prescribed by law. Meaning, if you were born into the Nobility you stayed in the Nobility for life. If you were born into serfdom you stayed a serf for life.

Or, like in India, if you are born into the Sudras, you have no choice but to be an unskilled worker for the rest of your life. Its the law. It is enforced by law.

In the US, we have no such caste system.

You are confusing a monopoly with caste systems.

Those who control the money supply are using the force of law to squash their competition and give themselves an unfair advantage. The very definition of a monopoly.

Your entire argument is hatred masked as good intentions. This is just another "let's bash rich people for being rich" post.

Just because a person has money, or lots of money, or a seemingly "unfair" amount of money is not the problem.

The problem, is the monopoly that groups like the Federal Reserve and the IMF have over the money supply. They can single-handedly ruin any business they want simply by manipulating the market.

It is the control that they have that is the problem, not how much money they have.

reply to post by bastion


What you have isn't actually capitalism, then.

reply to post by Pejeu


Who said I didn't?

What we have in the US isn't and hasn't actually been true capitalism for a very long time.

reply to post by ketsuko


Here is the data straight from the IMF to back you up. Note that Parado showed 80% of the wealth was owned by 20% of the population. This is a "Rule" used in many applications because it is a universal "truth"

In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income (Alvaredo and others, 2012). www.imf.org...

The reason the natural order has swung to the advantage for the rich is thanks to all the regulations that favor the big corporations and wipe out the small. There has been a major consolidation in ownership.

Research Article: The Network of Global Corporate Control

...We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.

reply to post by ketsuko


We're pretty much pure Capitalism. The problem is Capitalism is as flawed as Communism in practical application. It completely ignores the reality that bigger companies can buy in bulk at cheaper unit costs so can sell produce at a price lower than smaller competitors buy in which leads to monopolisation of the market.

It only works to transfer money from the poor to middle and put it in the pockets of the super-rich who have the power to hold countries to ransom by taking their industry elsewhere and can afford better lawyers and accountants than government so don't pay any tax.

Give me the free health care, education, social care, etc.. of Norway where success is determined by ability instead of inheritance over that any day.