The history of Marxism, Political Correctness, and the "Left"

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus

I am a company owner (wasting what would normally be precious time arguing with you but thanks to your "socialist" buddies, business sucks right now)

I'm sure you mean, "thanks to your CORPORATE buddies...." Corporations have helped destroy this country in more ways than economically.

reply to post by really


Exactly!

Society has been conditioned to revolve around finance, thus the corporations are the pinnacle of the system that controls us.

They have far more influence over government than we the people do. Money puts people in office, not votes. Corporations all have their representatives paid for, and as you all like to point out money MOTIVATES. Yes it motivates people to dishonesty, crime, murder, war etc., and it represses technology that could benefit us simply because no one can see a way of making money from it. Money as our only motivator is killing us. Just look at all the technology suppressed, or simply not invested in, by corporations because they go where they can make the most money, not do what's best for society.

Do people really want to live in a world where money plays the central role that all our decisions as a society revolve around? That makes you a slave to money.

www.hodcars.com...
www.americanfreepress.net...

The capitalist system is a scam, a pyramid scheme. It is keeping us in the dark ages, unless you're rich.

reply to post by ANOK


I wholeheartedly agree. I dropped you a couple of U2Us Anok. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks.

reply to post by drwizardphd

Liberalism is a belief in the importance of personal freedom. Nothing more.

Therefore Marxism is not liberal. Classical liberalism is very free market.

Then why do the followers of Liberalism always strive to create a nanny state that both provides for everyone and controls their behavior?

This is untrue. 'Followers of Liberalism' aren't liberal. Some call them progressive. I call them egalitarian. Conservatives are fairly egalitarian as well. Their dream of 'free market' isn't actually a free market, just a market that is less inhibited by government.

The 'right' and the 'left' aren't that far away from each other. Egalitarianism isn't just held in left politics, it is a foundation of a lot of conventional wisdom held by both sides.

Left/right is not the problem, the problem is a system that allows one class of people to rule over another.

There it is. I knew it would come up. Marxist class theory is flawed.


I wonder if there is a similar video about how the right came to being. We could synthesize the two into one film and just blow the lid off of all of them.

The right and the left mentality is just a fabrication of our controllers who use things like Critical Theory and McCarthyism (or any form of systematic thought policing) to make us mad at each other while the real plan is being implemented.

In a pure scenario, on one side, we have people trying to destroy the free market and on the other side we have people trying to spy on us, police thought, and militarize our civilian government.
What we have is a scenario where all of this is blurred and both sides are arguing which one to do first. This is all controlled by the political class while those of us that do not make our living of of the state are the slaves to the system. The political class is anyone who exerts the force of government for personal gain or to gain power for their group. Politicians, corporations, bureaucrats, etc.

Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production'

Socialism can only work in a voluntary system because it would take some form of social contact to give authority to coerce people into participation. As we have seen in human history, governments mishandle everything. So if the market were free, socialism could exist within it. I have had many discussions with you before ANOK, and I commend your anti-statist viewpoints, I just have issues with socialism being the best possible answer.

ANOK, I also distance myself from your definition of capitalism and identify myself as a free market person. Your definition of capitalism is more like a state-capitalism, their definition of a socialism is state-socialism.


Great video, and sorry about the thread going to the gutter. The video tells the truth for the most part, it just doesn't tell the entire truth omitting the antithesis. S&F

reply to post by Remixtup

Socialism was tried in America BEFORE THE TERM WAS COINED!! and was an utter failure.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed....

Thanks, you beat me to this quote.

Idealists are drawn to socialism but never factor in the reality of human nature. We are "lazy", we are predators and we mark and protect our "territory". Ever watch dogs, cats or better yet wolves? They only move energetically when hunting or when "rewarded", they have a "pecking order" and they "mark" and fight over their "territory"

Even when presented with a pasture full of easily killed domesticated livestock, wild predators normally only expend enough energy to make one kill. Dogs, thanks to man's breeding, however will kill off the entire herd. However marking of territory and respecting boundries is still part of a dog's nature. We use that to keep the neighbors dogs away from our sheep.

Humans share the same nature as other predators. We are "lazy", we have a "pecking order" and we protect our territory. Watching kids whining about doing chores/homework, fighting over toys and forming "clicks" shows that quite clearly but is ignored by idealists.

Primative hunter/gatherer societies are often pointed to as a reference as to how "socialism" is supposed to work. The steps away from hunter/gatherer to farming were made by women concerned with feeding their young. The ARCHAIC INDIANS planted crops while they were still nomadic hunter/gatherers. Even under these circumstances the idea of "property rights" was evident.

The Wampanoag.... Because southern New England was thickly populated at the time, hunting grounds had strictly defined boundaries, and were passed on from father to son.

...they respected the traditions and the elders of their nation. The work of making a living was organized on a family level. Families gathered together in the spring to fish, in early winter to hunt and in the summer they separated to cultivate individual planting fields. Boys were schooled in the way of the woods, where a man’s skill at hunting and ability to survive under all conditions were vital to his family’s well being. The women were trained from youth to work diligently in the fields and around the family wetu.

Agriculture provided most of the Iroquois diet. Corn, beans, and squash were known as 'deohako' or 'life supporters'. Their importance to the Iroquois was clearly demonstrated by the six annual agricultural festivals held with prayers of gratitude for their harvests. The women owned and tended the fields under the supervision of the clan mother. Men usually left the village in the fall for the annual hunt and returned about midwinter. Spring was fishing season. Other than clearing fields and building villages, the primary occupation of the men was warfare.
www.fluffy.demon.nl...

The idea of property ownership and working with the "reward" of the family's survival is missing from "socialism" no matter what version is advanced. Unfortunately the type of “Socialism” being promoted today is “What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control...” search.marxists.org... Of course this is the type of "socialism" the elite are actually working towards.

The Rockefellers and other bankers provide financing for the Bolshevik Revolution.

Frank Vanderlip, President of the Rockefeller-controlled First National Bank, compared Lenin to George Washington. The Rockefeller's public relations man, Ivy Lee, was used to inform Americans that the Communists were "misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind."....

American and European industrialists rushed to the aid of the Russians. The International Barnsdale Corporation and Standard Oil got drilling rights; Stuart, James and Cook, Inc. reorganized the coal mines; General Electric sold them electrical equipment; and other major firms like Westinghouse, DuPont and RCA, also aided the Communists. Standard Oil of New Jersey bought 50% of their huge Caucasus oil fields and in 1927 built a large refinery in Russia. Standard Oil, with their subsidiary Vacuum Oil Co., made a deal to sell Soviet oil to European countries and even arranged to get them a $75 million loan. Today, Russia is the world's largest petroleum producer and some researchers believe that the Rockefellers still own the oil production facilities in Russia withdrawing the profits through Switzerland.

Rockefeller's Chase National Bank (later known as Chase Manhattan Bank) helped establish the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922, and its first President was Reeve Schley, a Chase Vice-President. In 1925, Chase National and PromBank (a German bank) developed a complete program to finance the Soviets raw material exports to the United States, and imports of U.S. cotton and machinery. Chase National and Equitable Trust Co. were the dominant forces in Soviet credit dealings. In 1928, Chase sold the Bolsheviks bonds in America, and was severely criticized by various patriotic groups who called them "a disgrace to America."
www.modernhistoryproject.org...

reply to post by crimvelvet


How is ANY of that ANYTHING to do with socialism? Other then the Russian connection? BTW Russia was not socialist and the Rockefellers were out and out capitalists. Anything they did to help any kind of revolution was to simply line their own pockets and increase market potentials.

Why would they have wanted to give up their private ownership, which made them billionaires, and hand it all over to the workers? It's illogical.

You are all still clinging to this fantasy you have been told is socialism, and not seeing how it is obviously not. Again anyone who comes with authority and claims to be socialism is lying. Anyone who tries to put the label of socialism on something doesn't mean they are right. These things are being told to you by capitalists, would a shopkeeper tell you another store has better products and not as expensive?

Is there no perspective left anymore? Do people just simply believe what they want to regardless of any truth? Are people really that naive?

[edit on 10/16/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK

These things are being told to you by capitalists

The Rockefellers and the corporate ellite ARE NOT CAPITALISTS. They hate true capitalism. As Chernow comments, "after the civil war, the most significant revolt against free-market capitalism came not from reformers ... Rockefeller and other industrial captains conspired to kill off competitive capitalism in favour of a new monopoly capitalism". Rockefeller "sounded more like Karl Marx" when he rounded on the vagaries of the business cycle.." They have twisted "capitalism" just like I was trying to show you they are twisting "Socialism"

' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.' V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution

So in 1942 the Council on Foreign Relations was formed. The CED influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies. It was composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve and industry. CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a “solution”: millions of farmers would just have to be eliminated. They were very successful and tore apart the fabric of America, forcing an independent people to become "Wage Slaves" for industry.



The type of "socialism" promoted by the Rockefellers is actually Neo-feudalism with the serfs forbidden any ownership and the elite owning and controlling everything. by twisting socialism they convince the serfs to give up their property rights, by using "environmentalism" they convince the serfs it is necessary to live in poverty to "protect Mother Nature"

Maurice Strong says of himself he is “A socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.”

At Earth Summit II in 1992 He stated:

"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."

Notice Strong's brand of Socialism is all about lowering the standard of living of the middle class NOT about wrenching control from the ultra wealthy.

As long as Maurice Strong, trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, and his friend Al Gore represent "socialism", I want no part of it.





Cartoon by Robert Minor in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911). Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. (Pontifex Maximus) Morgan, (Pontifex Maximus), John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party. www.evildoers.info.../393

reply to post by crimvelvet



Velvet, you can explain to them till you're blue in the face, they just won't listen to this argument. To them capitalism is evil, because the only kind they know is this kind you speak of, or what I call govitalism, or otherwise known as corporatism, or monopolism.

They don't listen when you say you don't like this form of it either because to them ALL capitalism is bad. They in turn say we think all socialism is bad (yep I do think that. It is not the same as altruism which does have its place).

True capitalism did exist for a time and was great or at least as good as a human "system" can be. "True" socialism, the warm glowing fuzzy "original" definition they claim, also did exist at one time but failed miserably, because it cannot exist due to human nature. They ignore the one example that was given.

They claim glorious Norway or wherever, as the bastion of Democratic Socialism and it may be great for mediocre wanna do nothings or people with very few passions or zest for life etc., but the number of lost freedoms are ALWAYS directly proportional to the amount of "socialism" any society allows. ASK anybody in any European country who would like to own a gun, go hunting, etc.

They have been under the thumb of kings and dictators for so long they do not know what true freedom is. Unfortunately we we are losing that taste here as well.

Funny how they think the dregs left their countries to form the U.S. I argue it is the opposite, the best left Europe thus why America became "great" and Europe still wallows in self pity and loathing. They transpose their hatred on us because we refuse to become like them, (well some of us anyways) It gives them a complex so they respond with, "stupid. hillbilly wankers" because we don't want to follow the "enlightened" European "utopiaian" ideal which, by all accounts, is slowly coming apart at the seams in many countries as they finally realize it is unsustainable. .






[edit on 17-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

[edit on 17-10-2009 by I_am_Spartacus]

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus


Hm. I don't know what Europe you're talking about.

Also, regarding socialism - care to address the success of the worker co-operative?

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
To them capitalism is evil,

I'm not sure if I am part of the "them" you speak of but, I don't think that capitalism is evil (just it's present incarnation). I also don't believe it's the be all end all. The biggest problem I have on these threads is when I see people discussing Communism, Socialism, and fascism as all of the same thing. They are not. Just as capitalism and corporatism are not the same things.
That being said, I think a healthy economic system is a mix of some of these ideas.

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus


I do find it frustrating when I see those who support "socialism" falling into the traps the corporatists have set by mascarading as "socialists". Maurice Strong, Al Gore and the Clintons are prime examples of the Janus-faced Corporatist/Socialist.

I do think those who would like "free competition" capitalism and those who like socialism can at least agree that the corporatists are bad news. I would love to see a return to the 1950's type regulations so small busnesses can exist and grow. I would love to see employee owned larger corporations. I would like to see strict enforcement of anti-monopoly, anti-cartel anti -interlocking board of director regs.

That type of compromise would be good for employees, business and the economy. If we do not get rid of the red tape strangling our small businesses very very soon the USA is going down to third world status and fast. At that point all the touchy feelly do gooder social welfare stuff will evaporate and we will see REAL starving to death type poverty here in the USA as the USA is forced into bankruptcy and an International Monetary Fund Structural Adjustment Program (SAP)

The socialist in this country need to pay attention to Mr Davison Budhoo,who was a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund for twelve years.

"Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind's eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. "

With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988. A native Grenadian, Budhoo received his degree from the London School of Economics. He joined the staff of the World Bank in 1966 and later shifted to the IMF, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) for African, Latin American and Caribbean nations. His 100-plus page open letter to Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF, titled "Enough is Enough," sent shock waves around the world, making front page headlines in many countries (but not in the US).

Budhoo was the first person to break the IMF's code of silence regarding internal affairs by exposing extensive statistical fraud carried out by the fund...

Under "structural adjustment," developing countries typically are required to devalue their currency; dramatically cut spending on social services, medical care and education; eliminate barriers to foreign multinationals and trade; privatize national assets; deregulate business; decrease wages; restrict credit and raise interest rates.

Due to the radical reorganization of national economies, people in "SAPed" countries often pay for their governments' loans with extreme poverty, hunger and disease. Using figures provided by UNICEF and UNDP, the editors of the IMF-World Bank Watchdog estimated that more than six million children under the age of five have died each year since 1982 in Africa, Asia and Latin America as a result of IMF / World Bank policies...

Unfortunately instead of tightening the belt, cutting spending repealing smothering regulations and encourging the growth of new business, the new administration has doubled the money supply and leaped to enact more restrictive regulations to choke to death the last of our independent small businesses so the Multinational Corporations can complete their monopolies.

Originally posted by crimvelvet

I do think those who would like "free competition" capitalism and those who like socialism can at least agree that the corporatists are bad news. I would love to see a return to the 1950's type regulations so small busnesses can exist and grow. I would love to see employee owned larger corporations. I would like to see strict enforcement of anti-monopoly, anti-cartel anti -interlocking board of director regs.

Absolutely true.

reply to post by crimvelvet


What do you mean by 'the type of Socialism'?

It either IS or it AIN'T. There is no 'type'. This is what I keep trying to explain to you. If it's not 'the workers ownership of the means of production' it AIN'T SOCIALISM. That's what socialism IS.

What these powerful big wigs do IS NOT SOCIALISM, let alone a 'type'. I don't care if they call themselves socialists (Hitler called himself Christian) or what other people call them. It's not what people say it's WHAT PEOPLE DO. You are so confused with all these terms because of the way the media uses these term extremely loosely and very often incorrectly. This is why we're so messed up, the media conditioning of society into complete political and social confusion.
Go read a book.

The Rockefeller family make their money through BANKING and industry. Through PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. The definition of CAPITALISM is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production. SOCIALISM is the 'WORKERS ownership of the means of production'.
They can't be socialists if they own banks.

What these high finance CAPITALISTS want to do is NOT create a society where people own the machinery and resources necessary for their survival and well being, but a society where we are the machines doing their bidding through financial control of the markets, resources and machinery.

That is what SOCIALISTS have been fighting against before America was ever invaded by the Spanish CAPITALISTS looking for gold.

You have NO sense of history, have you ever even read any? With a sense of history you would know how it all fits together.

Go ask ANY SOCIALIST and see if they agree with your assessment.

There's people in power who CLAIM to be socialist, and then there are those who really are. Remember Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and so did G.W.Bush (but most are stupid enough to believe that one).

(excuse the yelling, I did it with a complete smile on my face and nothing up my sleeve, just trying to get through to some people is tough).

Some things that are really NOT socialist...
The Clintons (DUH!)
Obama
Social programs
France
The UK
China
Russia
Free handouts
Wimpy
Green, or pink
The Rockerfellers
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Cuba
Rosey

So much crap has been heaped upon socialism that most people really have no clue at all what it really is, and when it's mentioned, the things in my LIST (I have a list!) is what people usually first think of.
People are too lazy to do otherwise, and some even insist the list is right in face of evidence to the contrary. Beware of the list! And feel free to add to it, those that understand...

[edit on 10/18/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by I_am_Spartacus
Velvet, you can explain to them till you're blue in the face, they just won't listen to this argument.

Who's not listening?

I say again, who's not listening?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

What do you mean by 'the type of Socialism'?

It either IS or it AIN'T. There is no 'type'. This is what I keep trying to explain to you. If it's not 'the workers ownership of the means of production' it AIN'T SOCIALISM. That's what socialism IS.

This is how I define socialism too. As far as I'm concerned it's first and foremost an economic aim and principle as opposed to a political one.

I think a lot of the confusion stems from how, if socialism is an aim or a goal to move towards, then how that goal is actually reached and what the significance of that aim actually has been posited in different ways by different people and organisations. Therefore you get people, usually people with a beef against socialism, quoting Marx's views on socialism (as if he somehow invented it) and how he saw it as a stepping stone for a further goal of 'communism' as if that's all there is to it. Whilst I think Marx was actually off the mark (no pun intended) with this particular conclusion, he is incredibly important just for underlining why they was (and still is) a desperate need for inequality in a what was ostensibly a capitalist and unequal society.

I challenge anyone to read 'The Conditions of the Working Class in England in 1844' and not understand why the need to address this came about and why 'lazy bastards should work harder and make something of themselves' isn't really going to work for the vast majority of the population. Whilst it's over 150 years on, the mechanism for exploitation is still there and anyone who disagrees with this has a very selective take on the 'meltdown' informed threads over the last year or so.

Oh, as an aside, I challenge anyone to read the above book and dare to suggest that the English (and point to the English alive today) should have done more for the Irish during the 1840s. The vast majority of the English population were already living in the conditions outlined in that book which were then compounded with the arrival of 10s of 1000s of Irish even before the Famine.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Yes you're right, the media has blurred the definitions beyond recognition and people pick up on it and use it without first really knowing what they're saying. When lot's of people do this it makes the lies seem like truth, and folks feel smart repeating what they have trusted in others to provide them. Then of course they can't admit they're wrong so they will argue the point anyway.

Socialism can only come from the bottom, no one in power is going to do it, it will take the people to rise up and take back what theirs. But first people have to learn what theirs is, and not make the mistake of putting people in power, and allowing them to monopolise and control our resources.

Yes socialism is an economic system not a political system, I thought people new that. Capitalism is an economic system also. That is why government is not necessary for socialism.

reply to post by ANOK

You are so confused with all these terms because of the way the media uses these term extremely loosely and very often incorrectly. This is why we're so messed up, the media conditioning of society into complete political and social confusion.

We at least agree on two points. The media and education system is delibrately creating confusion. And the thing that is popularly known as "socialism" and promoted by the Corporatists is not any good for us Wage Slaves..

The definition I quoted as a "type of socialism" came from Marxists .org
“What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the conception that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control...” search.marxists.org...
A form of socialism (the real thing) that does not include consolidation of power in the central government and the stripping of freedom from us wage slaves might have more of my interest.

My run in with those who call themselves "socialists" was in Cambridge MA, "home of the foremost Marxist Scholars in the world." I developed a real dislike of socialism, when I had a former dancing partner screaming in my face "WE will kill people like you when we take over!!!" because I supported the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.

I think we also would agree that small businesses ie "sole proprietorships" and employee owned corporations are the best way to go. It combines the strengths of both systems and diminishes the weaknesses. I am all for ownership and reward for those who actually produce the wealth in this country. Any time power/wealth is accumulated in the hands of a few it becomes abused I think we can also agree on that point too. The less laws, the less consolidation of power the better for the little guy. Now there are so many laws, any time a powerful enemy wants to squash someone they can do it easily. I have seen many examples of late.

Did you note that the "mutual funds" that pool investors money to buy stock leave the CONTROL of that stock in the hands of the financiers and not those who actually own the stock, the workers???

I noticed that when I tried to find out who owned/controlled the truly evil corporation, Monsanto. 85% of Monsanto is held by mutual funds and Institutional(financial) Holders.
Divisions of Fidelity hold total shares: 39,127,443 or 7.15% The founding Johnson family controls most of Fidelity Edward C Johnson 3rd is chairman of the group.

Instead of "yelling" at each other we should figure out where we actually have areas of agreement. I generally dislike labels since I do not fit into any category except individual.