Who are the Fascists?

reply to post by ANOK


Wow, and you continue with your lies... Cuba is a socialist/marxist-leninist state... The state CLAIMS to represent the people, which is exactly what socialism is all about, and btw those in power
ARE PART OF THE WORKERS, but because all workers CANNOT own all means of production, which is a fact socialists/communists like ANOK FAIL time and again to comprehend. There are people, chosen by the communist party and who are loyalists to the revolution, who are in control of all infraestructure, but to make all infraestructure "work for the good of the revolution" all these people must do what the central communist committe, under castro, tells them they must do... That is a real socialism/marxist-leninist state..

AGAIN, to try to present the truth, and not the twisted lies that Anok and a few others are trying to spread, let's see what socialism and communism are really all about from sources whichhaven't been TWISTED by socialists/communists...

socialism


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...

Again, the first definition defines ALL branches of socialism, meanwhile the second clearly shows that in socialism THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION IS CONTROLLED BY THE STATE...

Now for communism...

com·mu·nism

Definition of COMMUNISM

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively.

www.merriam-webster.com...

In order for food and other things to be "distributed equitably" THE STATE must decide how much people really need and distributes the food and whatever they think the people might need, and btw the people still BUY all these products including the food...

In order for ANY society to really function there must be rules, and there must be a hirarchy, even in socialist/communist states this is true...

CHAOS ensues if everyone does what they want, and everyone owns everything and every person has a different idea of what they really need, hence to avoid chaos even in socialism/communism loyalists TO THE REVOLUTION, AND SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM are put in power and control everything, but in order for these "lower" people in power to work in unison and "for the good of the revolution, socialism/communism" they all must do as the central committe, or the elites in the communist party tells them they must do...

Even in socialism/communism money must exist. Which is another fact Anok likes to ignore. EVERY socialist/communist posting in these forums earns money and is part of the "MIDDLE CLASS" and some will even be richer, but despite this fact these same people claim that because in nations like Cuba the state allows FOREIGN enterprises to exist and make money and even some Cubans are able to have their own small businesses, to which most of the money goes to the STATE(for the good fo the revolution) he claims nations like Cuba are not socialist/communist... He is obviously wrong...

Even in the definition of socialism, as long as those "cooperative enterprises" exist for the so called "common good" (which means the state gets most of the earnings), and that "common good is the continued existance of the permanent revolution/socialism/communism" then such "cooperative enterprises" can exist...

This has been known and has been the truth for DECADES, yet now the new COMMUNISTS, which is what Anok really is and he doesn't even know it, are now trying to blur the difference between socialism and communism so that COMMUNISM can be implemented by them YET AGAIN...

If in order to be socialist/communist people can't make money, then THERE ARE NO SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS ANYWHERE in the world because all of them make money, most of them are even part of the middle class and even some are richer...

Under a socialist/communist system the STATE dictates how much you really need to eat, and what you can eat, as well as deciding what you need, and "for the good of the collective" you are not allowed to have what you want.

Under socialism/communism

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx.

Which means that if you disagree with anything about socialism/communism "YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE/REVOLUTION"... This is part of the "permanent revolution".

Even Karl Marx also stated that

" Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx.

And even Lenin said that

"The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin

www.brainyquote.com...

This is the reason why these days "COMMUNISTS" are trying to blur the differences between socialism and communism, because in truth their goal has always, and will always be COMMUNISM.

If in order to be socialist/communist people can't make money, then THERE ARE NO SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS ANYWHERE in the world because all of them make money, most of them are even part of the middle class and even some are richer...

Under a socialist/communist system the STATE dictates how much you really need to eat, and what you can eat, as well as deciding what you need, and "for the good of the collective" you are not allowed to have what you want.

Under socialism/communism

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx.

Which means that if you disagree with anything about socialism/communism "YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE/REVOLUTION"... This is part of the "permanent revolution".

Even Karl Marx also stated that

" Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx.

And even Lenin said that

"The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin

www.brainyquote.com...

To Karl Marx and others socialism is but a stage to convert a capitalist country into the final goal of COMMUNISM...

This is the reason why these days "COMMUNISTS" are trying to blur the differences between socialism and communism, because in truth their goal has always, and will always be COMMUNISM.

BTW, another fact that COMMUNISTS like ANOK love to ignore is the fact that in socialism/communism PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED, so how can the workers own anything when private property is abolished?... This is where the state comes in, as the upper echelon in the socialist/communist party CLAIM to "represent the workers", they are the ones who decide what to do with all infraestructure.

In the end even under socialism/communism you will have bosses, and this means they will better off than you. The one main difference between a socialist/communist state, and a nation that is capitalist is that under socialism/communism the 99% all have equitable suffering, none own anything at all, and all eat, drink, sleep, and think what the state claims "is for the good of the collective/the revolution/socialism/communism"...

Meanwhile in capitalism ANYONE can better themselves if they have the will. If you were born in a poor family, you can work hard and become part of the middle class, or even be richer if that is what you want. Of course, this takes more than wishing, it takes hard work which is something that many people these days have forgotten what it means and are taking for granted.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
If in order to be socialist/communist people can't make money, then THERE ARE NO SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNISTS ANYWHERE in the world because all of them make money, most of them are even part of the middle class and even some are richer...

Didn't we go over this? There is nothing wrong with socialists making money. You are just making things up.

Under a socialist/communist system the STATE dictates how much you really need to eat, and what you can eat, as well as deciding what you need, and "for the good of the collective" you are not allowed to have what you want.

Again we've been over this also. Please answer this question, if socialism is state control then why are anarchists socialists?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin.

If you don't understand that then go back and read what I've been saying, then go and read a few books and see what I'm saying is true.

Under socialism/communism "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." Karl Marx.

Which means that if you disagree with anything about socialism/communism "YOU ARE AN ENEMY OF THE STATE/REVOLUTION"... This is part of the "permanent revolution".

No it doesn't. The opposition to socialism in the time of Marx was the very violent capitalist state system, and still is.

The term "permanent revolution" simply means for the working class to continue to pursue it's own interests independently, without compromise, of any other class or political coercion.

Even Karl Marx also stated that "Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx.

Of course he did Marxism is the political path to socialism, through the democratic system.

And even Lenin said that "The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin
www.brainyquote.com...

To Karl Marx and others socialism is but a stage to convert a capitalist country into the final goal of COMMUNISM...

Again you're correct, you're just wrong in your definition of communism, again.

This is the reason why these days "COMMUNISTS" are trying to blur the differences between socialism and communism, because in truth their goal has always, and will always be COMMUNISM.

No one is blurring anything, you are simply taking quotes out of context and using your misunderstanding of terms to make stuff up.

Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. It has markets and uses money.

Communism is when socialism has increased production to the point all peoples needs are met and money becomes irrelevant. Communities share resources communally.

BTW, another fact that COMMUNISTS like ANOK love to ignore is the fact that in socialism/communism PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ABOLISHED, so how can the workers own anything when private property is abolished?... This is where the state comes in, as the upper echelon in the socialist/communist party CLAIM to "represent the workers", they are the ones who decide what to do with all infraestructure.

I am not a communist, I have never said I'm a communist. I've just done extensive reading on the subject. I am a socialist, which I have been since I was a teenager, I have been a member of 'Militant' and 'Class War London'.
I'm not just some internet educated fool.

No, private property is not abolished, again you make assumptions from out of context statements. You can have all the private property you want. If workers were educated they would organize and open worker owned businesses. No need to abolish anything, just give people a choice.

Private property, in the context of socialism, is any property used to exploit workers for profit. Not your personal property like you home or your car. No one should have the right to exploit others just because they are lucky enough to own property.

The truth is that your personal property—what you need to enjoy a secure and comfortable life—is a lot safer under socialism than under capitalism...

www.workers.org...

Private property is the employment, control, ownership, ability to dispose of, and bequeath land, capital, and other forms of property by persons and privately-owned firms.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property and collective property, which refers to assets owned by a state, community or government rather than by individuals or a business entity.[2] Private property emerged as the dominant form of property in the means of production and land during the Industrial Revolution in the early 18th century, displacing feudal property, guilds, cottage industry and craft production, which were based on ownership of the tools for production by individual laborers or guilds of craftspeople.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Please learn this and stop with the misunderstandings.

Meanwhile in capitalism ANYONE can better themselves if they have the will.

That is a fallacy because not everyone can be successful under capitalism. Capitalism is like playing the lottery. There is only so much room at the top. Good paying jobs are scarce, if everyone had a doctors degree some of them would be flipping burgers because there are only so many jobs. Someone has to flip burgers right? The rich can not exist with the poor. We want equality, not privilege and advantages.

If you look at history most nations wealth has been made by exploitation and war, not hard honest work.
America is wealthy because of it's years of slavery and exploitation of third world nations.

Basically you're calling the poor lazy. Capitalism is extremely competitive. How is working harder going to stop capitalists sending jobs overseas? Typical capitalist rhetoric, worker harder, accept less pay.

Capitalism keeps resources scarce in order to make profit, meaning we are all paying way more than we should for what we need. Capitalism is about exploitation, not meeting needs.

Sorry but you are extremely naive when it come to this.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by ANOK

 

Wow, and you continue with your lies

You have a nerve calling me a liar.

Cuba is a one man dictatorship. There is no worker ownership of the means of production. Industry is nationalized, which is government ownership. Nationalism was a temporary step in Marxism, not a permanent situation. Nationalism is a permanent part of fascism. Nationalism is not socialism. Not all socialists support the temporary nationalism of the Marxists, so they called themselves anarchists.

You might claim Cuba is on the path to socialism/communism, but I simply don't see that. It is a dictatorship with no plans to turn the means of production over to the workers.

Again as I explained even IF it was socialist, it's economic problems are because of the 50+ years of American embargoes.

Do you know why the US did that? Because the US apposed Castro's nationalists, wanting Batista to remain in power. So instead of becoming a sugar plantation for the US, Castro sold to the USSR instead. It was then the US started calling Cuba communist, and started embargo's. It is nothing but propaganda, not reality, Cuba has never been or ever will be communist.

Originally posted by ANOK

Didn't we go over this? There is nothing wrong with socialists making money. You are just making things up.

So now you are going to play dumb again and claim that you never stated that for example Hitler, Mussolini, Castro etc are/were no socialists/communists because they were making money through businesses?...

Originally posted by ANOK
Again we've been over this also. Please answer this question, if socialism is state control then why are anarchists socialists?

Because there are many branches of socialists, and other people who have THEIR OWN IDEAS and make up whatever they want to come up with.

BTW, don't try to portray me as speaking to a child, because YOU don't want to accept the facts I have posted. I will continue calling your lies about socilaism/communism for as long as you try to continue to spread such lies.

Stateless socialism supposedly is communism, but as I explained CLEARLY time and again there will ALWAYS be a hierarchy in a society no matter how much people like you like to claim otherwise. There will ALWAYS be people in charge because otherwise chaos ensues, or nothing is done since there will ALWAYS be people with different ideas on how they want things to work...

Originally posted by ANOK

If you don't understand that then go back and read what I've been saying, then go and read a few books and see what I'm saying is true.

What you are saying is not the truth... Just because some socialists/communists decided to write lies it doesn't make them truth...

Originally posted by ANOK
No it doesn't. The opposition to socialism in the time of Marx was the very violent capitalist state system, and still is.

YES IT DOES... Marx wasn't refering just to his time, but to all time... Under socialism/communism the only way peace can exist is when there is no active opposition against socialism/communism, which is part of the reason socialism/communism become dictatorships ALWAYS.

Originally posted by ANOK
The term "permanent revolution" simply means for the working class to continue to pursue it's own interests independently, without compromise, of any other class or political coercion.

Originally posted by ANOK
No one is blurring anything, you are simply taking quotes out of context and using your misunderstanding of terms to make stuff up.

YES YOU ARE... You have claimed that "socialism is worker's ownership of the means of production" which is the actual CLAIM/definition of COMMUNISM...

YOU, alongside other socialists/communists are making stuff up, and rewritting history to try to lure the masses who have no knowoledge of the past of socialism/communism...

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. It has markets and uses money.

NO, AGAIN, socialism is "state control and ownership of the means of production"... I have alreayd shown PROOF of what I am saying is true...

Originally posted by ANOKCommunism is when socialism has increased production to the point all peoples needs are met and money becomes irrelevant. Communities share resources communally.

You have no idea what socialism or communism are, so don't keep trying to spread more lies

Originally posted by ANOK
I am not a communist, I have never said I'm a communist. I've just done extensive reading on the subject. I am a socialist, which I have been since I was a teenager, I have been a member of 'Militant' and 'Class War London'.
I'm not just some internet educated fool.

If you BELIEVE that socialism is "the means of production owned by the workers" YOU ARE A COMMUNIST because that is the definition of communism, not socialism...

Originally posted by ANOK
No, private property is not abolished, again you make assumptions from out of context statements. You can have all the private property you want. If workers were educated they would organize and open worker owned businesses. No need to abolish anything, just give people a choice.

For crying out loud, you are only showing how ignorant you are about these ideologies...

The first plank of communism CLEARLY states...

1) Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

www.libertyzone.com...

Karl Marx himself stated, and i quote...

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

KARL MARX, The Communist Manifesto

www.notable-quotes.com...

Yet YOU claim this is not true?...

Oh, and DIRECTLY FROM A SOCIALIST WEBSITE...

...
The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished....

www.workers.org...

YOU ANOK have no idea of what you are talking about, and this can be seen in the fact that even socialist websites, and Karl Marx himself state the CONTRARY to what you claim...

This fact, that you are so confused, also shows the level of knowledge of people like you about these ideologies, which is ZERO, and why not only are you so confused about this, but because of this confusion and ignorance on your part you are ready to accept and implement systems which have brought NOTHING BUT MISSERY AND DEATH at the hands of socialist/communist dictatorships...

Cuba was transformed into a society where the state owned and organised production in all significant areas. Instead of decisions about investments and production being made by private capitalists, they were made by the Cuban state, heavily dependant on the whims of the USSR.

State-controlled economies are subject to the same pressures as market economies, and equally rely on the continued exploitation of the workforce.

Ordinary Cuban workers did not have any say in the important decisions that affected their lives—the targets for economic plans and the distribution of scarce consumer goods between the state and the rest of the population.

www.solidarity.net.au...

What am I confused about exactly?

There is nothing socialist about Cuba. The term was used for political reasons, not as a description of their economy.

The term socialism means worker ownership, capitalism is private ownership, nationalism is state/government ownership. You have to understand those basic definitions and use them in context.

You are confused because of your misunderstandings of Marxism, that people who have never read Marx make, from quotes taken out of context found on teh web. I am confusing to you because you fail to understand that what you have pieced together from out of context quotes is naive and wrong. You are blaming socialism for something that has nothing to do with socialism. It's sad because if you could only see your mistakes you could see that it's not socialism you should be against, it's nationalism and state control. The only alternative to nationalism and state control is socialism.

Marxism is not socialism. It is a political path to move from capitalism to socialism. Known as the transitionary period. There is a lot of things wrong with Marxism, but blaming socialism for the mistakes of Marxism just shows a lack of understanding. Blaming events in history on socialism is also wrong. There have been no true socialist (worker owned) nations, the term has been used for political reasons only, not as a description of their economies.

Workers owning the means of production is a good thing, for everyone.

This is socialism....

Worker-owned collectives are a specific type of worker cooperatives, which are business entities that are owned and controlled by their members, the people who work in them. The two central characteristics of worker cooperatives are: (1) workers invest in and own the business and (2) decision-making is democratic, generally adhering to the principle of one worker-one vote. Worker-owned collectives in particular use consensus decision making practices to manage the company.

www.ronin.coop...

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference...

www.marxists.org...

Shared ownership helps to diversify rather than concentrate wealth and roots the value it generates in communities...

The key to global prosperity: worker ownership

Socialist ownership of the means of production is ownership by all workers. Capitalists cease to exist and workers cease to be their employees.

home.vicnet.net.au...

Save your rants and educate yourself for your own sake.

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, are you really that hard headed and ignorant that you can't even accept the fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about?...

I proved that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism, and that you don't even know that in both ideologies private property is abolished and you claim it isn't...

Sir, you HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...

The situation in Cuba, and the rationing by the state STARTED BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PUT IT'S EMBARGO...

The regime in Cuba has had business for decades with other nations, INCLUDING EUROPEAN NATIONS AND CANADA, yet NONE of that money has been used to help Cubans... instead it is used to keep the controls that don't allow Cubans to stand up and fight...

In Cuba, in EVERY neighborhood there is at least one spy that works for the state. Normally it can be a criminal who the state gives the choice to spy, or serve in prison. These spies tell the government if there are any groups forming, and what they talk about in those groups, in case they are pro-liberty.

Every piece of information that you find about Cuba, including from the CIA is WHAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA WANTS THE WORLD TO BELIEVE...

Why do you think that no independent Human Rights group is allowed in Cuba?... Just so the world doesn't find out what has been happening there... That's why...

Cuba has enough infraestructure to feed all Cubans, but instead "for the good of the revolution" the state FORCES farmers to plant tobacco, sugar and other products that don't feed Cubans, and most of the little food that is farmed in Cuba is either sent, or sold to other countries "to spread the revolution"...

You need to be quiet about things you don't know about. Not only do you show complete ignorance on these ideologies and what history has to teach, but you show arrogance in your defiance in the face of FACTS...

Socialism, AGAIN, is THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE...and even under communism the state, or "the communist party" is the one in charge of everything "FOR THE GOOD OF THE COLLECTIVE, AND THE REVOLUTION"...

Under communism THE STATE CLAIMS TO BE, OR CLAIM TO REPRESENT THE WORKERS...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished....

www.workers.org...

This has been explained to you. Socialists believe in the abolition of private property used to exploit workers.

The term 'socialism' means worker ownership of the means of production, which is what replaces the private ownership of the means of production, capitalism, and the exploitation using that private property, because instead of a private owners the workers themselves own the place they work at.

If a government/state takes control of the means of production it is nationalisation, not socialism.

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again you simply misunderstanding what you are reading. Quotes taken out of context are not a good way to debate with someone who knows the context of those quotes. You need to actually read Marx if you want to intelligently argue it.

It's easy to remember, social, pertaining to the people, national pertaining to the state. Socialism, worker ownership, nationalism, state ownership.

I'm not sure what other reason you think socialism is something it's not but I've covered the basics. School is over, if you don't get it now you never will. No more out of context quotes, go read the whole thing yourself, and stop relying on other peoples misinterpretation. When you've read it, and you still think I'm wrong, then we can continue this debate maybe with a little more intelligence than you calling me a liar, and saying I'm wrong with nothing to support your claims other than your misinterpretation of out of context quotes.

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry Anok, I missed your response earlier.

Originally posted by ANOK
I will link this again, maybe you will read it this time?

Although I tend to disagree with some of your opinions I always take the time to read the source material you provide to support your arguments.

I believe that it is important to challenge ones own beliefs with dissenting opinions, in this case my belief is that the article you provided is typical apologist fare similar to other contemporary left-wing revisionist arguments that the Soviet communist party or NSDAP were not true socialists.

I still stand by my statement earlier regarding Cuba being an example of red fascism but thank you for taking the time to try and provide further context to your point of view.

Marx has been badly served by disciples who have succeeded neither in assessing the limits of his theory nor in determining its standards and field of application and has ended up by taking on the role of some mythical giant, a symbol of the omniscience and omnipotence of homo faber, maker of his own destiny.

The history of the School remains to be written, but at least we know how it came into being: Marxism, as the codification of a misunderstood and misinterpreted body of thought, was born and developed at a time when Marx’s work was not yet available in its entirely and when important parts of it remained unpublished. Thus, the triumph of Marxism as a State doctrine and Party ideology preceded by several decades the publication of the writings where Marx set out most clearly and completely the scientific basis and ethical purpose of his social theory. That great upheavals took place which invoked a body of thought whose major principles were unknown to the protagonists in the drama of history should have been enough to show that Marxism was the greatest, if not the most tragic, misunderstanding of the century. But at the same time this allows us to appreciate the significance of the theory held by Marx that it is not revolutionary ideas or moral principles which bring about changes in society, but rather human and material forces; that ideas and ideologies very often serve only to disguise the interest of the class in whose interests the upheavals take place. Political Marxism cannot appeal to Marx’s science and at the same time escape the critical analysis which that science uses to unmask the ideologies of power and exploitation.

Marxism as the ideology of a master class has succeeded in emptying the concepts of socialism and communism, as Marx and his forerunners understood them, of their original meaning and has replaced it with the picture of a reality which is its complete negation. Although closely linked to the other two, a third concept – anarchism – seems however to have escaped this fate of becoming a mystification*. But while people know that Marx had very little sympathy for certain anarchists, it is not so generally known that despite this he still shared the anarchist ideal and objectives: the disappearance of the State. It is therefore pertinent to recall that in embracing the cause of working class emancipation, Marx started off in the anarchist tradition rather than in that of socialism or communism; and that, when finally he chose to call himself a “communist,” for him this term did not refer to one of the communist currents which then existed, but rather to a movement of thought and mode of action which had yet to be founded by gathering together all the revolutionary elements which had been inherited from existing doctrines and from the experience of past struggles.

Maximilien Rubel 1973 Marx, theoretician of anarchism

*Except for the attempt of the so-called anarcho-capitalists.

Engels explains why the transition from socialism to communism must be gradual. Because private property cannot be abolished all at once...

www.allaboutworldview.org...

Engels wrote the rough draft of the Communist Manifesto. He and Marx, in opposition to the Anarchists (Bakunin was their biggest rival in the Communist League), believed the progress from capitalism to communism should be gradual and done using the political method. Bakunin, like all anarchists, wanted direct action, revolution.

“Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy.” Engels

The transitional period between capitalism and communism is what the Communist Manifesto explains, and where all the confusion of what socialism is comes from. Quotes taken out of context and used to demonize socialism. It all went hand in hand with the propaganda, and use of left-wing terms for political reasons.

“Finally, when all capital, all production, and all exchange are concentrated in the hands of the nation, private ownership will automatically have ceased to exist, money will have become superfluous, and production will have so increased and men will be so much changed that the last forms of the old social relations will also be able to fall away.” Engels

The transitionary period, explained in the Communist Manifesto, is temporary until production is increased to overcome the scarcity caused by capitalism, and peoples needs are met, then there will be communism. But it is that transitionary period that you have been told, or think, is communism or socialism. That is where people make the mistake.

The final goal of Marxism, and Anarchism, of all socialists, is free association. The difference is in the path to get there...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ANOK

This has been explained to you. Socialists believe in the abolition of private property used to exploit workers.

You don't need to explain it to me... I LIVED IT unlike you... Not to mention that your revisionist crap is only that, revisionist crap. If you actually had read Marx, Engels, etc you would know that ALL private property is abolished because according to your idols, who were nothing more than murderers, private property "which is a capitalist idea" must be get rid of in order for a true socialist/communist state to exist...

You have been caught time and again lying, and posting false information, but every time you are shown to be wrong instead of accepting that you are wrong you try to twist the truth, just like EVERY socialist/communist leader has EVER done...

I have given you time and again what the definition HAS ALWAYS BEEN for socialism and communism... but instead of acepting the FACTS you provide more socialist/communist revisionist BS...