Obama Is Not Left

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If you think Obama is not left, at least recognize what he is doing to destroy our sovereignty

Could you please explain what you mean by sovereignty?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It seems to me that if Obama was going for Despotic Socialism like you seem sure he is, the wealth would be being sucked out of private enterprise instead of pumped in like what is actually happening. The average glance at corporations shows CEO and other high level executives making off with jaw dropping salaries, bonuses etc... and shareholders doing equally well with investment profits. That doesn't in the least bit sound Marxist (Left), it sounds Fascist (Right).

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

It seems to me that if Obama was going for Despotic Socialism like you seem sure he is, the wealth would be being sucked out of private enterprise instead of pumped in like what is actually happening. The average glance at corporations shows CEO and other high level executives making off with jaw dropping salaries, bonuses etc... and shareholders doing equally well with investment profits. That doesn't in the least bit sound Marxist (Left), it sounds Fascist (Right).

It's very complicated to merge Marxism with Corporatism.

China is a good example.

They have many billionaires and millionaires.

China Billionaires !

Not only is concentration of wealth a direct product of capital accumulation, but centralization of capital (redistribution of capital - mergers, etc.) accelerates the tendency toward monopoly.

As Marx pointed out, “Centralization in a certain line of industry would have reached its extreme limit, if all the individual capitals invested in it would have been amalgamated into one single capital. This limit would not be reached in any particular society until the entire social capital would be united, either in the hands of one single capitalist, or in those of one single corporation,” (Vol. I, Capital, Kerr Edition, p. 689).

The centralization of capital is one of the centripetal forces in the accumulation of capital. There are other, centrifugal forces which inhibit the realization of the absolute limit, discussed by Marx in Volume I and in more detail in Volume III.

Marx and Modern Capitalism

Some of the world's largest corporations are American but are very very "International".

You need to look at who actually "owns" them to understand the Marxist / Corporatist concept.



The problem is, the onion skin keeps getting thicker after losing each layer.

The large and extra large "stockholders" are hiding inside the major and minor investment banks and insurance companies and real estate trusts.

Those "holding tanks" are all private companies and will not disclose who owns what.
Many executives in the large holding tanks don't know everything.
An example would be Coca-Cola.....how many people know the formula ? Not many.

The "billionaires" own shares within these holding tanks.
The "visible" holdings are their own real estate and businesses.
They funnel the excess money to the holding tanks.

Many "super" elites don't even have individual assets that amount to "billions".
The assets are spread out within families and frosted with hundreds of company names and owned by layered companies worldwide. But all the end profits go into the investment accounts eventually.

The Rothschild companies have thousands of "holdings" in thousands of names.
The Vatican operates the same way.
Neither seem to be listed anywhere as "individuals".

We notice also that China, with all its' communist glory, has many billionaires not to mention millionaires.
Notice the list has many Chinese with the same ranking?
That's because those "individuals" are all part of the same ancient elite families.

China has been involved in world trade for thousands of years. The ancient trade routes were around and well established long before Rome ! Their "wealth" structures may have been in place before the rest of the world.

Nations (and their "leaderships") do exactly the same thing and act as cloaking scapegoats for the worldwide corporations and super-elites.



[ continued ]

[ continuing ]

The big boys are all "owned" by the "stockholders".

Most of the "stockholders" are big institutions.

Many own stock in each other.

Yahoo finance has the info.

Notice here Bank of America (NYSE symbol BAC) has "direct" holders with a few hundred thousand shares.

Note however that some big institutions have a few hundred MILLION shares !!!!

search for other banks and you will see the same pattern.


BAC Major Holders

The "individuals" have very little say in policies.

The big institutions have some of the same "advisory staffs" for ALL their bank holdings as well as other corporate holdings.

The big institutions are all "private" and do not disclose WHO actually calls the shots !!!
many are big time MBA's and London schooled professionals.
They remain "cloaked" and are some of the same people advising the governments worldwide.
These people are agents for the real Powers That Be.......for real.

Very well structured and very very secretive.

Any time we see a real name of a real person, you can be certain that they are mid and low level scapegoats.

The genuine power is concealed.......

STATE STREET CORPORATION is a major player and manipulator of the game.

State Street Corporation, or just simply State Street is a U.S. based financial services holding company. State Street was founded in 1792, and is headquartered in the Financial District area of Boston at One Lincoln Street.[2] State Street has offices in major financial centers throughout the world.

State Street Bank and Trust Company, a custodian bank, and its sister company State Street Global Advisors (SSgA), which is a leading registered investment advisor, together comprise the principal operating companies within parent company State Street Corporation.

State Street Global Advisors


These are some of the people who actually decide how, when, and who the next mergers will be....
including nations and groups like the European Union, etc.

It is all about the money.....nothing else phases these bad boys.

London based Rothschilds are major holders of the holders.




they all loop into and around and from each other !!

for example:

State Street is one of their own largest stockholders
(that changes from time to time however)

finance.yahoo.com...


note: "major holders" is in the left column
finance.yahoo.com...


en.wikipedia.org...

finance.yahoo.com...
note that Vanguard stock leads to a dead end on ownership
(the left column has no "major holders" link !

This is how they hide TPTB and keep 'em anonymous !



BlackRock is another holding tank like State Street.

en.wikipedia.org...

BlackRock, Inc. is an American multinational investment management corporation the world's largest and most prominent asset manager.[3] BlackRock is headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States and is the leading provider of investment, advisory, and risk management solutions[citation needed]. The company acquired Barclays Global Investors in December 2009 under BlackRock, making BlackRock the largest money manager in the world.[4]

Founded in 1988, initially offering fixed income products, [color=;imegreen]BlackRock has become a financial powerhouse while remaining out of the public eye. According to Ralph Schlosstein, CEO of Evercore Partners, a NY-based investment bank: “BlackRock today is one of, if not the, most influential financial institutions in the world.”[5]

finance.yahoo.com...

what a surprise, we just can't hide from the Sun can we?

All Roads Lead to Rome.



The top 3 shareholders for some of the most powerful companies in the world are all the same:

Walmart
-Vanguard Group
-State Street Corperation
-BlackRock

ExxonMobil
-Vanguard Group
-State Street Corperation
-BlackRock

Chevron
-State Street Corperation
-Vanguard Group
-BlackRock

ConocoPhillips
-Vanguard Group
-State Street Corperation
-BlackRock

General Electric
-Vanguard Group
-State Street Corperation
-BlackRock

reply to post by xuenchen


Lots of info, thank-you...but doesn't it all point to private industry controlling governments versus governments controlling private industry? Again it's Fascism not Marxism, Communism et al.

Originally posted by xuenchen
It's very complicated to merge Marxism with Corporatism.

Why do people keep thinking Marxism has anything to do with this?

Marxism is a political path to communism, and communism is 'free association'. Communism is an economic system, not a political system. Corporatism has nothing to do with the goals of Marxism. Corporations are a capitalist ideology. Marxism supports temporary nationalism, government ownership, but by a government of workers (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is known as the transitional period that Marxists believed necessary in order to change the economy from capitalists (private ownership) to socialist (worker ownership).

Marxism is a path to an ideology, it is not the ideology itself. Marxism is neither socialism, nor communism, it is a political path to reach those goals. That goal is the same for all left wing ideologies, the free association of producers.

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutonary dictatorship of the proletariat". Karl Marx

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...

What is happening is simply advanced capitalism, the concentration of capital in giant corporations that dominate and control the economy. Stop looking for excuses outside of capitalism, that is the mistake people keep making, assuming, because they have been conditioned to do, that capitalism is the default economic model and everything else is the problem. Capitalism is the problem, it has always been the problem.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Lots of info, thank-you...but doesn't it all point to private industry controlling governments versus governments controlling private industry? Again it's Fascism not Marxism, Communism et al.

It's all based on Marxism / Corporatism.

private industry controlling governments = governments controlling private industry ...

it's the same thing.

The "Managers" either work for the "Corporations" or they work for the "Government" or both !!

In the current dilemma, it's both.

How many "Government appointed Officials" are current and / or former "Corporation Officials" ??
(answer = "Many")


Small corporations and small businesses are more "individualistic".
the bigger the "corporation", the less meaning "individualism" has.


Example: The "Marxist" overtones in big companies.
If you work as a car mechanic in a small garage, you are an "individual" with more substance than if you are a mechanic on an assembly line in a General Motors factory. The corporatist money funnels work the same way.

Goldman Sachs

Personnel "revolving-door" with U.S. government

During 2008 Goldman Sachs received criticism for an apparent revolving door relationship, in which its employees and consultants have moved in and out of high level U.S. Government positions, creating the potential for conflicts of interest. Former Treasury Secretary Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Additional controversy attended the selection of former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, despite President Barack Obama's campaign promise that he would limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration.[81] In February 2011, the Washington Examiner reported that Goldman Sachs was "the company from which Obama raised the most money in 2008" and that its "CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 10 times."[82]

And here's a good one:
Ever wonder how that insurance company GEICO got their name ? Surprise Surprise !



Marxism = Corporatism

reply to post by ANOK

Corporatism has nothing to do with the goals of Marxism

Perhaps I should have use the term "neo-Marxism".

It's the Hegelian Dialectic that keeps sidetracking everybody.

The neo-Marxism / Corporatism complex is where we are today.

reply to post by xuenchen

How many "Government appointed Officials" are current and / or former "Corporation Officials" ?? (answer = "Many")

And when those corporate officials are appointed to government positions, in whose interest do they act? In the governments? No. They act in interest of their corporation. They enact policy that enables their corporation to gain more and more capital.

Small corporations and small businesses are more "individualistic". the bigger the "corporation", the less meaning "individualism" has.

Logically yes, but we now have Citizens United in which a group of people with common interest and goals (making more money/gaining more capital) act as an individual and are protected as such. Literally this is equivalent to one person having hundreds of voices/votes and with their money to back them up those voices are actually heard.

So, I could take 500 of my friends who intend to demand the same policy as me, intend to vote the same as me and knock on my representatives door or request a meeting but because me and my friends cannot raise 10 million dollars for their campaign our voices count for nothing. And chances are we'll be told we're demonstrating and arrested upon trying to gain entrance to the Capitol Building. I'm getting sidetracked but I think I made my point.

Private interest influencing government policy and encouraging laws that protect them from the people. That is not anything but bald faced Fascism.

Here's a link showing the 18 Venn diagrams.

Corporatism at its' best.

18 Venn diagrams

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
If you think Obama is not left, at least recognize what he is doing to destroy our sovereignty

Could you please explain what you mean by sovereignty?

How about a dictionary definition

Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.
4. A territory existing as an independent state.

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) supreme and unrestricted power, as of a state
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the position, dominion, or authority of a sovereign
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an independent state

www.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by Kali74


Here are two videos that tie Fascism & Marxism together.

I know it's Glenn Beck, but the concept is real.

Chapters 1 & 2 (There are 5 or 6 I think)


Fascism & Marxism the same thing. chapter 1

Glenn Beck lays out the facts and the truth that has been covered up for years by the left that they and the nazis are one and the same . This series comes from the Glenn Beck program and was originally called Revolutionary holocaust.

Fascism & Marxism the same thing. Chapter 2

Originally posted by xuenchen
Perhaps I should have use the term "neo-Marxism".

It's the Hegelian Dialectic that keeps sidetracking everybody.

The neo-Marxism / Corporatism complex is where we are today.

Adding 'neo' doesn't help you.

Sorry, but you obviously do not understand what Marxism is. You are way off trying to tie Marxism into this, why would you even do that? Marxism has nothing to do with corporations, they are capitalist. Marxism as I explained before ultimately is anarchist, state free, it just uses the political path to get there. We will never be state free under capitalism when corporations and the state work as one, that is called fascism, not Marxism.

Have you ever actually read the Communist Manifesto?

What is happening is because of capitalism, that is the economic system we have, and no one in government is working towards socialism, worker ownership, it would simply not be in their best interest.

I've not watched your vids so I don't know where the confusion is coming from, but if they're telling you this is Marxism they are wrong.

Marxism has been misunderstood by the majority of people since the 1950's, but to call the agenda of the capitalists Marxism is to take the cake, mate.

How are you defining Marxism?

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe it's time for you to study up as well. For instance, did you know that Marx and Engels both embraced Hegelian dialectic? Yes, Marxism is dialectical materialism.

You could start studying right now with a Marxist website

We are publishing the first of what will be a series of Marxist study guides. The purpose is to provide a basic explanation of the fundamental ideas of Marxism with a guide to further reading and points to help organise discussion groups around these ideas. We are starting with dialectical materialism, the philosophy of Marxism.

Marxism, or Scientific Socialism, is the name given to the body of ideas first worked out by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). In their totality, these ideas provide a fully worked-out theoretical basis for the struggle of the working class to attain a higher form of human society - socialism.
The study of Marxism falls under three main headings, corresponding broadly to philosophy, social history and economics - Dialectical Materialism, Historical Materialism and Marxist Economics. These are the famous "Three component parts of Marxism" of which Lenin wrote.

www.marxist.com...

Ok now that we have established that Dialectical materialism is a branch of Marxism, next study Antony sutton's description of how it is used by Skull and Bones and the Elite (this is incidentally why Obama appears right to leftists and left to those on the right while he is serving as POTUS and as a tool for the Elite, but I assure you he is a Left Hegelian)

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to bring about this change.

www.prisonplanet.com...

I sincerely hope this brings clarity to you and to others who are confused about POTUS and his position.