Gorbachev Exposes Global Communist Environmentalism Conspiracy.

What is happening here is the equating of authoritarianism with communism... which is a completely incorrect analysis of the system. Communism has led to extreme authoritarianism, but it is not a go-to term for such things. There are plenty of non-leftist dictatorships over the course of time.

The Federal Reserve, which I am strongly against, is privately owned by corporations... which is the exact opposite of communism.

Obama is backed by Wall Street, and the bailouts have been a dual robbery of the American tax payer and the propping up of the capitalist system. It is known as "lemon socialism", and no, it is not communism.

I don't like the Democrats in this country, nor the Republicans. I've never supported the actions conducted by the USSR, Castro, or any other dictatorship. I still hold left wing views, however. It's called 'leftist-libertarian' or 'libertarian-socialist'. And no, I don't want to imprison you for not accepting my beliefs.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


When you really think about it you can't separate Socialism and Fascism. They are both on the far off left side of the spectrum.

If you look at what Mussolini did he implemented many Socialist programs also. There are different ways by which the Socialist elites have taken all power.

At the end the results are almost identical with the centralization of power and having a few people being in control of everything.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


The argument starts to become circular when you consider that the guys on wall street are really not different than the other rich elite. I mean, the FED is technically itself a corporation, so where does that leave us? With a corporation, disguised as a federal agency, operating on behalf of other corporations.

I know that central banking is considered by some to be the hallmark of a communist state, but the first central bank was created well before Marx came along. The Bank of England was instituted in the seventeenth century by the British monarchy.

I'm sure the communists were good students of history, and recognized the power of such an idea in terms of controlling the finances of a vast nation. But I don't see it as a defining feature of their ideology, so much as a hallmark of their strategy. It facilitates consolidation of power, no matter what motives are in play.

The point we are trying to make is that socialism has many flavors and each flavor can be radically different to the other. Everything in politics is Left vs Right so by knowing this we can determine the following:

Italian Facism and German Nazism= NATIONAL socialism=Far right of the political spectrum much like the republican party of the usa.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Cuba, North Korea, etc =Communism=Far left of the politcal spectrum

Europe and Canada (2-3 decades ago)=Socialism(plain vanilla flavor)=Centrist aka neither right nor left

Anarchy=Belief in no government

Bottom line is ultra-capitalism and imperialism equates to Far-Right *National Socialism*

Yeah I know its a little confusing but a cursory study of history and politics proves my analysis correct. Feel free to disagree all you like though!

Gorbachev is the biggest liar in world politics.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I agree with you fully.

It's all just one scheme or another used by one group or another to consolidate power, and the labels really only serve to confuse us. The propaganda begins with their title.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


No, fascism, modeled to be the opposite of communism, falls on the far right of the scale. Traditionally Communism, as discussed by Marx, is anti-State, while fascism is built on the foundation of rampant nationalism.

Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.

Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.

What is Fascism? Some General Ideological Features

Mussolini on socialism:

Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”

From wikipedia on the Nazi Party:

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[11][12][13]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
...........
I know that central banking is considered by some to be the hallmark of a communist state, but the first central bank was created well before Marx came along. The Bank of England was instituted in the seventeenth century by the British monarchy.
..............

The concept of Communism existed before Marx. Just because the Socialist elites in power in the world are using many tactics, including using corporate power to take over doesn't make it any less Socialist/Comunist.

Centralization of ALL power by a few who claim to represent the people is part of the Communist goal. The only thing is that Marx claimed that later on all the people would be in power and there won't be a need for government.

IMO that was just a tactic employed by Marx to lure in people into believing this form of economic/government is "for the liberation of people"....

Originally posted by Someone336

No, fascism, modeled to be the opposite of communism, falls on the far right of the scale. Traditionally Communism, as discussed by Marx, is anti-State, while fascism is built on the foundation of rampant nationalism.
............

Were Lenin and Stalin any less Communists because they had different ideals on what goals they should follow?...

While one wanted Nationalistic Communism, the other wanted the immediate expansion of Communism around the world.

Hitler was a Socialist, yet he despised the goals of other Socialists, and of course Communists because they would interfere with his own vision of Socialism.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by TrueTruth
...........
I know that central banking is considered by some to be the hallmark of a communist state, but the first central bank was created well before Marx came along. The Bank of England was instituted in the seventeenth century by the British monarchy.
..............

IMO that was just a tactic employed by Marx to lure in people into believing this form of economic/government is "for the liberation of people"....

That's the part that everyone here can agree on.

It's all about control.



I wonder what the steps are for the creation of a state bank, like they have in Nebraska?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You're correct in many ways. But each 'label' is just a way of corrupting each side of a so-called spectrum.


The real important measure, as also spectrumized in the last video I posted, is Despotism:

Google Video Link

Originally posted by Someone336

From wikipedia on the Nazi Party:

Wikipedia is not a source to be trusted fully. After all it is a Liberal/Progressive source that has editors who change topics, and even statements of scientists which they don't like just to support their own biases on certain topics.

If you want to find out what Hitler was, and what he wanted you have to read what Hitler said in his speeches, and the goals he had in mind.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of todays capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

www.hitler.org...

THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST -
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.

www.hitler.org...


[eidted to clarify comments]

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Were Lenin and Stalin any less Communists because they had different ideals on what goals they should follow?...

Yes, they were. Leninism, Stalinism, as well as Maoism, etc, are all sub-forms of a totalitarian form of communism. Blaming Marx for the actions of the USSR would be like blaming the founding fathers for what the US is turning into, or Jesus for the Inquisition. Trotsky himself denounced Stalin, writing essays on the betrayal of their revolution and labeling the USSR as a 'degenerated worker's state'

Corporations, polititions, and banks have stolen money, lied, wrecked the econemy, and commited countless crimes and you complain about LIBERALS and COMMUNISTS who is led by a man who couldent win an election even if he got more votes.

You fear what the goverment wants you to fear

The us could do what ever they wanted in the cold war because it 'fought communism' today they can do whatever they want because it 'fights terrorism'.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse



"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it."

"The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise."

"Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest."



William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

www.huppi.com...

Originally posted by Someone336

Yes, they were. Leninism, Stalinism, as well as Maoism, etc, are all sub-forms of a totalitarian form of communism. Blaming Marx for the actions of the USSR would be like blaming the founding fathers for what the US is turning into, or Jesus for the Inquisition. Trotsky himself denounced Stalin, writing essays on the betrayal of their revolution and labeling the USSR as a 'degenerated worker's state'

There is a big difference between Marx, and the founding fathers of the Republic of the United States.

Marx must have known that his ideals would produce dictatorships. There is no way around it when you give complete power to a few in the name of everyone else.

When you give up individual freedom for the "common good of all" you are enslaving everyone. There is no way out around that.

BTW, Trotsky was no better than the other two. They only had different ideals on some of the goals of Communism.

If Trotsky had taken power millions of people would have been murdered, and millions more would ahve been imprisoned by his own version of Communism.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Did the Nazis have a free market? Somewhat, but it was not centralized.
Did the Nazis have private property? Yes.
Did the Nazis have private industry? Yes.
Was Germany industry at the time governed democratically via the worker cooperative system? No.
Was the Nazi system nationalist? Yes.
Did Big Business financially back the rise of the Nazi party? Yes.

I wouldn't call them socialist, regardless of what Hitler said.

Originally posted by Someone336
Yes, they were. Leninism, Stalinism, as well as Maoism, etc, are all sub-forms of a totalitarian form of communism.
..........

BTW, they were not any less "Communists" because they had some different ideals on Communism.

Just because there are different ideals on what Communism should be like doesn't make any one of those ideas any less Communist.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

There is a big difference between Marx, and the founding fathers of the Republic of the United States.

It was for the sake of comparison.

Marx must have known that his ideals would produce dictatorships. There is no way around it when you give complete power to a few in the name of everyone else.

Have you read the Manifesto? It doesn't call for complete power for a few, it calls for complete power of the proletariat, the entire working class. This is where I disagree with Marx, and agree with his chief rival, Bakunin: no one should have complete power at all. Marx and Bakunin did share a common goal: a stateless, classless world where the working class owns the means of production. They just differed on the means to get there. I don't agree with Marx, but I don't think he intended or anticipated a Stalin to occur.

When you give up individual freedom for the "common good of all" you are enslaving everyone. There is no way out around that.

I don't recall him asking to give up individual freedom.

BTW, Trotsky was no better than the other two. They only had different ideals on some of the goals of Communism.

They had different ideals on the core, defining goal on communism: the existence of the State. Without that goal, it isn't communism. It's something else entirely.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by Someone336]

Originally posted by TrueTruth
The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it."
.............

Again we go back to the fact that just because Socialists/Communists used money, and corporations it doesn't make them any less Socialists or Communists.

Any, and every system needs money, and power to take control, even Socialist or Communist dictatorships.