~Left Wing~ Secret Societies

Originally posted by TheBandit795
True... It's a facade. IMHO they were even behind the feminist and civil rights movements of the 60's.

I wish you would’ve backed me up in this thread.

Boy, did I take a beating!!

I agree the Illuminati control (sorry, influence) the left and the right. Gary Allen describes it best in his book None Dare call it Conspiracy. It also has a few examples of the Hegelian dialectic which is what I think the OP is refereeing to.

I’m really not sure that “EZ test” is part of a left-wing conspiracy. The company probably didn’t do the research and development itself and are using someone else’s patent. Law-enforcement agencies probably use similar products. (and probably did the research)

Originally posted by ANOK
then how could the Illuminati be 'left wing'?

Rousseau would also be considered left-wing, even if he lived before the term was coined. Plato and Confucius, right-wing. It's in how people think. (but thanks for the history titbit, I didn’t know that. )


[edit on 19/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

The illuminatti is a paranoid fantasy that only exits in the minds of people who, for whatever reason, have not figured out that they control their own destiny.

the ELF is alive and well! even if we are a bit fictional.

(All you have to do to serve the will of Eris is to go out and make something beautiful out of something ugly. Deface a billboard, or pass out Pope cards in front of a Fundie church. Even if you went and joined the Illuminati, you can bet it was part of Her plans.)



[edit] and just to clarify, Discordians (or at least POEE Discordians) are neither left-wing nor right. both ideologies are insane.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by The Parallelogram]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Actually, the French Parliament thing is an urban legend, but by "left wing" in the the sense of the Illuminati, I was referring to liberalism, which they championed.

No it's not...

ask.yahoo.com...

And why do you assume because they were liberal they were 'left-wing'?
Liberalism can be right wing too you know (conservative liberalism). Not that it really matters, I don't follow the left-right divisional con trick anyway, but America seems to have created it's own definition of political terms, or just misunderstand their original meanings and use.

It has been claimed that Dr. Weishaupt was an atheist, a Cabalistic magician, a rationalist, a mystic; a democrat, a socialist, an anarchist, a fascist; a Machiavellian amoralist, an alchemist, a totalitarian and an "enthusiastic philanthropist."

Source

Seems to me, like most of the ruling elite, they don't follow the left-right paradigm at all anyway, which is logical to me. So your left-wing opinion, I believe, is just that; an opinion.

Originally posted by RWPBR
The illuminatti is a paranoid fantasy that only exits in the minds of people who, for whatever reason, have not figured out that they control their own destiny.

The Illuminati in a conspiratorial sense usually refers to the crème de le crème of the ruling class. For example the energy cartel that keeps us addicted to fossil fuels. That’s the Illuminati. They are out there.

BTW, Am I the only one who notices the contradiction in your signature?


[edit on 19/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

ConspiracyTheorist, you really hit the nail on the head with your definition of the Illuminati.

One can be an Illuminatus and not realize it. There is no secret immaculately-organized cult of power, despite the pretensions of certain affluent boys'-club groups. What is real is greed, corruption, and the highly exclusive ability to influence the world and the lives of humans to a degree beyond any kind of reason.


(and likewise, although there may not be an ancient sage lurking beneath Dallas giving us our orders, there will always be rogue elements in society that choose to work toward a shift in public consciousness away from established Order. the system can keep most people either stupid or well-behaved, but not all of them. fnord.)

[edit on 20-4-2007 by The Parallelogram]

If everyone could agree on a single definition of Illuminati, as we all know there are several, 90% of the antaganism would fall away and there could be some serious discussion of the topic.

IMO, of course...

Originally posted by Freeman
Yeah by left wing i just meant anti illuminati

How ironic.

To be Illuminated is to be "liberal" in the sense of the word..

Not SOCIALIST as the political term is now associated with liberalism..

The Illuminati is, if it exist, a liberal organization..... hence the whole battle with the church thing.

Originally posted by ANOK


No it's not...

I now think you are correct, and I concede. I was told long ago in history class that it was an urban legend, but all references that I can find indicate that the story is true.

And why do you assume because they were liberal they were 'left-wing'?
Liberalism can be right wing too you know (conservative liberalism). Not that it really matters, I don't follow the left-right divisional con trick anyway, but America seems to have created it's own definition of political terms, or just misunderstand their original meanings and use.

During the 18th century, "liberalism" referred to a political ideology that championed freedom of speech, democratic elections, rational inquiry, and separation of church and state. The general consensus of this opinions was known as the Enlightenment. The Illuminati were so proud of their Enlightenment ideals that they named their Society after it. Furthermore, we can tell by the official Illuminati documents, as well as the writings of their individual members, that the group sponsored liberalism.

Seems to me, like most of the ruling elite, they don't follow the left-right paradigm at all anyway, which is logical to me. So your left-wing opinion, I believe, is just that; an opinion.

First off, it is far from accurate to refer to Weishaupt as a "ruling elite". He was a persecuted man, having lost his job, and everything else, because he would not compromise his integrity nor bow down to an unjust government.

It was the ruling elite who scapegoated and demonized Weishaupt and the Illuminati to begin with. The elite has always recognized the fact that the masses are a superstitious and naive lot, and have always used this against them. They convinced the people to fear the Illuminati...and even today continue to do so. The obvious black humor involved would be hilarious if not so sad.

Originally posted by Rockpuck


To be Illuminated is to be "liberal" in the sense of the word..

Not SOCIALIST as the political term is now associated with liberalism..

Actually, there is a huge difference. Liberalism still promotes lassiaze-faire capitalism. New Deal Liberals, however, believe there should be a safety net in society.

Socialism seeks the complete eradication of capitalism. I'm beginning to think more and more that the Socialists have the right idea.

Viva Hugo Chavez! Viva Evo Morales! Viva Che Guevara!

I'm beginning to think more and more that the Socialists have the right idea.

I agree that capitalism causes damage in many ways, on the government, on the people, except those on top..

But you can do away with corporations, still have an open and free market with out resorting to Socialism, which has proven time and again to be nothing but more problems..

The problem is with instant communication and extremely short delivery times, corporations will be hard to keep down, not to mention the current population cannot be held under true Socialism, capitalism feeds us excessivly.. remember the USSR (and russia still) could not feed its millions with Socialism, as with China, they simply couldn't do it.

Originally posted by Rockpuck



I agree that capitalism causes damage in many ways, on the government, on the people, except those on top..

So far we are in complete agreement.

But you can do away with corporations, still have an open and free market with out resorting to Socialism, which has proven time and again to be nothing but more problems..

Where has this been proven? Socialism has never actually existed. Sure, the English and the Canadians and the Cubans have free universal health care, but there's still the guys at the top making mucho bucks. The USSR became an instrument of capitalism under Stalin...the industrialists were simply replaced by the Party cronies, who operated under the exact same system.

Authentic Socialism is the complete eradication of one man's control over another. It is, in effect, the Brotherhood of Man taken from ideology and put into reality.

The problem is with instant communication and extremely short delivery times, corporations will be hard to keep down, not to mention the current population cannot be held under true Socialism, capitalism feeds us excessivly.. remember the USSR (and russia still) could not feed its millions with Socialism, as with China, they simply couldn't do it.

As pointed out, the USSR was not Socialist, nor is China. Capitalism has not fed everyone there, nor has it fed everyone in the US. How many children will go to bed hungry in our own country tonight? How many elderly cannot afford their medicine, or even to pay their light bill?

As for the corporations, even though the law makes them a "person", they in fact exist only on paper. If and when the Revolution comes, they will simply be swept away, either by the Revolution itself, or by factors that lead to the Revolution (such as a worldwide depression and bankruptcy).

You won't see it on a McDonalds commercial because the Revolution will not be televised.

Workers of the World, Unite!

Masonic Light

Where has this been proven? Socialism has never actually existed. Sure, the English and the Canadians and the Cubans have free universal health care, but there's still the guys at the top making mucho bucks. The USSR became an instrument of capitalism under Stalin...the industrialists were simply replaced by the Party cronies, who operated under the exact same system.

Authentic Socialism is the complete eradication of one man's control over another. It is, in effect, the Brotherhood of Man taken from ideology and put into reality

Its been proven by the fact that, as you said, socialism and communism have never existed.

If "capitalism" is considered the average word for anything involving ambition, desires for power, control and concentration of wealth..

Then yes, capitalism had an effect on the USSR, and China, and every nation and tribe, clan, group, in human history....

Humans will never be complacent in being equal to every one around them, and somone will always have to lead, there will always have to be a ruler and along with him, a ruling class.

I hope you don't propose Anarchy, as that is also impossible to create

As pointed out, the USSR was not Socialist, nor is China. Capitalism has not fed everyone there, nor has it fed everyone in the US. How many children will go to bed hungry in our own country tonight? How many elderly cannot afford their medicine, or even to pay their light bill?

The USSR and China are both socialist. So is the UK, most of Europe, Canada and much of the world, and the United States is nearly there.

"Socialism" cannot be defined strictly as a text book defenition... makes no sense..

There has never been a true "Democracy" ... never a true "Communist" never a true "republic" and very, very rarely a true "monarchy" .. though there have been times in history where one existed, for a very short amount of time..

USSR, China, ect are the examples of an attempt at true socialism and communism..

The United States was an attempt at a Republic.. it was an attempt at true Democracy..

There will never be a "true form" of any government, save for an absolute monarchy.

As for the corporations, even though the law makes them a "person", they in fact exist only on paper. If and when the Revolution comes, they will simply be swept away, either by the Revolution itself, or by factors that lead to the Revolution (such as a worldwide depression and bankruptcy).

There will be a revolution.. there always will be a revolution, ecentually.. no state last for an eternity.

The corporations will be wiped away.. some die on their own, some may be torn down by the people..

In its place, be it Socialism, Communism, Democracy, Despotism, Monarchy.. someone will always have more, someone will always be on top, there will always be an elite class and someone will always use the demise of others to provide the boost to their own political, personal gain.

And with people like that around, "true" systems will never exist..

Socialism cannot make every one equal..

Someone will still be cleaning the toilet.. scrubbing the floors, flipping the burgers.. and don't expect engineers and scientist, inventors and thinkers to do hard work for nothing more then the guy scrubbing the mold from behind a toilet.

Rockpunk, have you looked into participatory economics? (also on wiki)

I'm surprise no one has mentioned Blair's Fabian Society. Interestingly, David Rockefeller wrote his doctoral thesis on Fabian Socialism.


[edit on 24/4/07 by ConspiracyNut23]

Conspiracy .. The only thing I see in the short term that will end Capitalism or at least render the philosophy of Capitalism completely useless.. is a massive downsize of the Human population. - Essentially turning the clock back a few hundred years, and re-build. It's engrained, a change from Capitalism as we know it .. to pretty much any different economic ideology would = complete chaos and war.

Also, the theory you linked to would not be effective in generating wealth, thus slowing the economy, the nation and her people, making her vulnerable to outside threats. Be it economical, or military, or even influencial. There is simply to much government involvment suggested in that theory to work with Capitalism, which to gain the full effect of Capitalism has to be left alone, for the most part. Being the full effect create absolute wealth, with as little expense as possible. I think it is safe to say it is VERY good thing that corporations are kept in check as far as quality, human treatment and enviromental treatment - in the West anyways..

[edit on 4/24/2007 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by Rockpuck


If "capitalism" is considered the average word for anything involving ambition, desires for power, control and concentration of wealth..

Then yes, capitalism had an effect on the USSR, and China, and every nation and tribe, clan, group, in human history....

In socialist theory, "capitalism" is used in a qualified sense. It cannot refer to tribes, etc., of antiquity, as it can only be applied in those cases, after the Industrial Revolution, that the bourgeiousie has overthrown the feudal lords, and established an economic system based on production's capital. One's class status in this society is determined by his relationship to the means of production.

Humans will never be complacent in being equal to every one around them, and somone will always have to lead, there will always have to be a ruler and along with him, a ruling class.

I hope you don't propose Anarchy, as that is also impossible to create

Anarchy and Freedom are not the same. There can be no denying that leadership is necessary. The only point of the socialists is that, in capitalist society, leadership is arbitrary. It depends not on virtue or capability, but instead on those who control the means of production, and thus can generate wealth. In essence, it makes the entire capitalist political system artificial.

The socialists propose, as their forerunner Plato did, that one should be able to rule himself. This is liberty, not anarchy. Furthermore, socialists do not propose that all leadership be abolished...just artificial leadership.

The USSR and China are both socialist. So is the UK, most of Europe, Canada and much of the world, and the United States is nearly there.

Not one of these states is socialist because they all operate on capitalistic class principles, i.e., a separation of control concerning the means of production. A couple of exceptions, however, are notable.

The late Josip Broz Tito, former Chairman of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, attempted to introduce authentic socialism in that country. He faced many hardships: Stalin considered him a traitor, and put a price on his head. The West distrusted him because he was a Marxist, even though he was not a Soviet ally. He had limited resources to work with because his country had been devasted by World War II.

Nevertheless, the results there were shocking. By introducing authentic socialism, instead of Stalin's version of state capitalism, the standard of living in Yugoslavia soared. It was also a "free" communist nation in which the citizens still enjoyed human rights and personal liberty.

Yet, after his death, the nation was torn apart by religious sectarians, both Islamic and Christian, who wished to abolish the socialist state in favor of religious dictatorship.

"Socialism" cannot be defined strictly as a text book defenition... makes no sense..

If so, we couldn't even talk about. In actuality, socialism is defined quite easily. It is the revolutionary abolition of class distinction, and worker control over the means of production. According to socialists, it is the natural system to replace capitalism, just as capitalism was the natural system to replace feudalism.

USSR, China, ect are the examples of an attempt at true socialism and communism..

Not even close. Socialism cannot exist until capitalism has run its course, just as capitalism cannot exist until feudalism has run its course. Both Russia and China were still feudalistic when they attempted to convert.

Lenin recognized this problem, and introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP) into the Soviet Union. This allowed capitalism to function, but under the close supervision of the Party in order to protect the proletariat. The idea was that, at the right time, capitalism could be abolished, and socialism could exist.

After Lenin's death, the NEP, which had begun to strongly improve Soviet society, was cancelled by Stalin, who introduced the first of his Five Year Plans. This set the USSR on its course of collapse, which culminated in 1989.

Someone will still be cleaning the toilet.. scrubbing the floors, flipping the burgers.. and don't expect engineers and scientist, inventors and thinkers to do hard work for nothing more then the guy scrubbing the mold from behind a toilet.

Is flipping burgers or cleaning toilets not "hard work"? Why not?

Here, we must refer to Plato: you indicate your belief that scientists and engineers do their jobs because of love of money. Plato points out that the true physician heals people not because of money, but because Nature has made them physicians. Therefore, there are two types of doctors: true physicians and makers of money. More of the former, less of the latter, please.

Examples of true physicians are Patch Adams and the aforementioned Che Guevara. Examples of makers of money are those people who go to med school because they want to be rich, spend 5 minutes examining us, then charge us a hundred bucks for it.

There is a difference. Physicians will still be physicians, and engineers will still be engineers in socialist society. Makers of money will eventually become extinct, simply due to social evolution.

In socialist theory, "capitalism" is used in a qualified sense. It cannot refer to tribes, etc., of antiquity, as it can only be applied in those cases, after the Industrial Revolution, that the bourgeiousie has overthrown the feudal lords, and established an economic system based on production's capital. One's class status in this society is determined by his relationship to the means of production.

I in no way condone the methods use in Capitalism as any way ethical, but then again, I consider an extremely few things Humans do to be true and ethical, and would not expect, in any situation let alone economics and government. It is on these levels that so much power, wealth, fame and greed combine and are essentially the driving force.

However, that is, in the end the entire point. When debating economic systems and "what works best" within a given society, typically people ask what will benefit the average person? Socialism, as it is, in theory is the distribution of wealth and power, and productions over any given community BY the community its self. The government is the main caretaker, and is in control of any production that is used across the board by the community as a whole. Power plants, water, gas, hospitals, clinics, insurance, ect.

All of that I agree with.. the government should control all of that, and some, but when you get into food production ect, daily products.. the distribution of the total income from any given company would cripple it compared to outside sources - you won't be able to export the product because the companies, held back by the socialist governments, cannot compete with the quality of outside sources. While you can always protect your national interest by closing the borders, higher tariffs ect.. you essential build a wall and block your self from the out side world.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, when NATO and the UN went into countries for the first time, like Lithuania... it was astounding that the economy had been stalled literally at the same level for 40 years! .. it was closed off from the outside world, the only foreign investments came from Moscow, and any exports where rigorously controlled (food mainly and factories) by Moscow as well..

While the Soviet Union was a horrible example of Socialism, and any government for that matter.. it is imo the end that all socialist governments will end up in.

Though, to be fair, I equally agree (or believe if you do not agree) that all Democracy is, is the slow downward trend into tyranny. Every presidency since Washington has been more powerful then the last.. eventually with the mark of a pen the power will be consolidated and the next age of America will begin. The Empire age.. which, imo, is inevitable.

Anarchy and Freedom are not the same. There can be no denying that leadership is necessary. The only point of the socialists is that, in capitalist society, leadership is arbitrary. It depends not on virtue or capability, but instead on those who control the means of production, and thus can generate wealth. In essence, it makes the entire capitalist political system artificial.

Something can only be as artificial as what it is compared to. Comparing Capitalism to what? What makes Capitalism artificial?

If the people believe the wealth they hold is indeed wealth worth what they buy or trade, it is then worth something.

When someone believes it is worthless, and does not accept it, then it is artificial as it has no metallic value.. but even metallic values can be denied.

To say Capitalism generates a fiat monetary system, well for a monetary system not actually worth anything, we sure have come along way off flimsy paper

The basic principle right now that hold America's money together is the faith that we have the productivity to match the value we say its worth.. which is why the war for oil is so important, if people stop using the Dollar and no one wants a reserve of it any more, there are more dollars on the market, thus dropping the price. A Gold standard would have it level through out the world, every ones money is backed by the gold in your vault, so if people did not want our dollar, it would still be worth the amount of paper in circulation compared to the weight of Gold in the vaults.

As of now however the estimated total wealth of the world per person/productivity .. there would not be enough Gold or Silver in the world to match it. That, imo, is the perfect sign as to a fiat system when your "wealth" meets no boundaries - what can you do to put a ceiling on it?

The socialists propose, as their forerunner Plato did, that one should be able to rule himself. This is liberty, not anarchy. Furthermore, socialists do not propose that all leadership be abolished...just artificial leadership.

I believe his intent and purpose for saying that was, every one has the right to rule their own actions, their own fate. To have free will to choose as they wish without someone telling them what to do in their personal lives.

I do not believe however, he thought that man had the ability to "govern" themselves. Ah I cannot remember the term, been so long since I read Aristotle and Plato. Not absolute monarchy.... ah

Enlightened Monarch. They believed that to be the best form of government - one to which I my self subscribe.

The late Josip Broz Tito, former Chairman of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, attempted to introduce authentic socialism in that country. He faced many hardships: Stalin considered him a traitor, and put a price on his head. The West distrusted him because he was a Marxist, even though he was not a Soviet ally. He had limited resources to work with because his country had been devasted by World War II.

In an isolated community, and a small community (small country) I do honestly believe Socialism is the best form of government, or direct monarchic rule. More attention can be placed on the individual people and communities.. when Socialism or Communism is attempted on a large scale population, so many millions are neglected, either by ignorance, the lack of the ability to govern that many people or malicious intent..

On a large scale I see Socialism as destructive in an attempt to make every one equal, it reduces the people to equal poverty.. and on a large scale the production that still has to be met to care for the people leaves a vacuum for power, control and eventually exploitation.

It was also a "free" communist nation in which the citizens still enjoyed human rights and personal liberty.

Yet, after his death, the nation was torn apart by religious sectarians, both Islamic and Christian, who wished to abolish the socialist state in favor of religious dictatorship.

A strong leader, with the true concern of his people, can do anything. Anything at all. However, after they part from their people, often by death.. there is no one to take their place. The main fault in Monarchy's as well.

I do not believe this world creates true leaders as often as it once did. Or perhaps the given system we have to work with discourages our great leaders from rising to power.

but under the close supervision of the Party in order to protect the proletariat.

Political parties will always be a nest of infectious exploitation, conspiracies against the people, malicious intents, corruption, lies and degeneration.

If you want change, political parties must be destroyed.

It was the political parties that are more concerned with themselves controlling the power of the State and her people the lead to the destruction and pollution of most socialist/communist countries. As well as most democratic nations as well.

Here, we must refer to Plato: you indicate your belief that scientists and engineers do their jobs because of love of money. Plato points out that the true physician heals people not because of money, but because Nature has made them physicians. Therefore, there are two types of doctors: true physicians and makers of money. More of the former, less of the latter, please.

I did not say "flipping burgers" was not hard work - no it is hard work, but it is not the same standard of work as what another, such as a scientist or an inventor.

You can achieve the system you want if the old population was wiped away, other wise their ingrained ideas of "I deserve more because of....." will always pollute the system.

Examples of true physicians are Patch Adams and the aforementioned Che Guevara. Examples of makers of money are those people who go to med school because they want to be rich, spend 5 minutes examining us, then charge us a hundred bucks for it.

I do not know who Patch Adams is...

However, I completely agree with you on these points, however I still believe they deserve to be on a higher social scale then the toilet cleaners.

Eventually it will breed malcontent and the system will once again be polluted.


But.. I am only 20 years old. I have no doubt that my idas and beliefs will change over time, maybe given another 20 years, I will be a socialist. Who knows.

Given the situation I live in, and my own ambition, Capitalism is currently better for the average person to gain and create wealth and make a better life for themselves and their family, then any current Socialist government can provide.

Originally posted by Rockpuck


Something can only be as artificial as what it is compared to. Comparing Capitalism to what? What makes Capitalism artificial?

Not capitalism, but the political system which it represents. The government claims to be "for the people". Yet no one can be elected without excepting millions from special interests, who then control the politician like a people. This makes the system artificial, and the president, or senator, etc., is just the mouthpiece for this or that corporation.

I believe his intent and purpose for saying that was, every one has the right to rule their own actions, their own fate. To have free will to choose as they wish without someone telling them what to do in their personal lives.

I do not believe however, he thought that man had the ability to "govern" themselves. Ah I cannot remember the term, been so long since I read Aristotle and Plato. Not absolute monarchy.... ah

Enlightened Monarch. They believed that to be the best form of government - one to which I my self subscribe.

Plato described a socialist society which operated as a meritocracy. There would be no class system per se, but three "castes". One's position is determined not by wealth, but by merit. Interestingly, in Plato's republic, the rulers, the "Philosopher Kings", are not allowed to even touch money, much less own it.

On a large scale I see Socialism as destructive in an attempt to make every one equal, it reduces the people to equal poverty.. and on a large scale the production that still has to be met to care for the people leaves a vacuum for power, control and eventually exploitation.

According to the socialists, this is precisely what capitalism does.

I do not know who Patch Adams is...

He's a pediatrician who treats kids for free in third world countries. Robin Williams played him in a biographical movie.

Eventually it will breed malcontent and the system will once again be polluted.


But.. I am only 20 years old. I have no doubt that my idas and beliefs will change over time, maybe given another 20 years, I will be a socialist.

Who knows.

Given the situation I live in, and my own ambition, Capitalism is currently better for the average person to gain and create wealth and make a better life for themselves and their family, then any current Socialist government can provide.

Yet the average person is malnourished and hungry. We have to look at the big picture. The US has become wealthy due to capitalism, but at the expense of the rest of the world.

The basics of Marx's theory is thus:

1. Revolutionary capitalism will replace feudalism in industrial centers.

2. Capitalism produces wealth i those centers.

3. Since other people are watching some guy get rich, they too want to get in on the action, and began producing the same commodity. Competition is born, and prices drop. Soon everyone can afford the commodity.

4. Demand for the commodity decreases because the economy has been flooded with it. Capitalists must either close shops or export. They generally export.

5. Commodity reaches foreign soil, people observe other getting rich, they want in on the action, repeat process. Not only has a commodity been exported, but capitalism itself has been.

6. Finally, capitalism has spread over the world, and the market is flooded by a surplus of goods. Production ceases, workers lose their jobs. Even though much is available, the price of goods soars because the capitalists have no more real income. The system collapses due to these internal contradictions.

7. A new system emerges naturally to continue production/ It avoids the outdated system of buying/selling because capitalism's purpose has been exhausted.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Socialism cannot make every one equal..

Someone will still be cleaning the toilet.. scrubbing the floors, flipping the burgers.. and don't expect engineers and scientist, inventors and thinkers to do hard work for nothing more then the guy scrubbing the mold from behind a toilet.

Socialism makes everyone "equal", some of them are just more "equal" than others

Equality is a birthright, an inheritance and as such can be sold, abandoned and squandered just like any other personal asset.
The same applies to Liberty.

Socialism makes everyone "equal", some of them are just more "equal" than others

Equality is a birthright, an inheritance and as such can be sold, abandoned and squandered just like any other personal asset.
The same applies to Liberty.

I personally agree with Masonic light about the nation as a community being more concerned with helping their fellow citizens instead of striving for self riches..

I just don't think the socialist set up is at all realistic, which is proven by the fact it has never existed. Capitalism will not "run its course" and the population is to extreme to handle a world wide "socialist" method of governing..

It simply is not realistic, it has nothing to do with the ethics and morals behind it..

Socialism makes everyone "equal", some of them are just more "equal" than others

Exactly my sentiments..