People have been brainwashed to believe that socialism is evil...

reply to post by korgmeister


The banking system is another example of socialism sorry to say. Just because they are making money doesn't mean they are not socialist. That would be like saying there are no socialists/progressives and even communists who are rich... Just look at what the elites are trying to do by controlling everyone, and everything and they claim it is being done "for the good of all...

Didn't you know that under socialism there must be a central bank?... You can pretend that "it is a bank for the people" but the truth is that it is a form of control, and control is the force behind socialism.

Socialism seeks to control private property, and it seeks to control the people "for the good of all"...

Collectivism (not just socialism) is a disease. Period. And it is incurable. We just have to do whatever we can to make sure people know what it is, who is pushing it on people and why it should not be encouraged.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


But you see, that's the same as claiming that being in any society means to be socialist. To be in a society you must do your part no? Does that make you socialist?

Does the fact that everyone must follow for example traffic laws mean that this is a socialist system?

Does being compassionate to others means you must be socialist? Most socialists claim so, but is it true? i say no. You can be compassionate by CHOICE, just like most people who follow traffic laws doesn't make them socialists but instead do it because they know that otherwise it would be chaos.

Originally posted by korgmeister
"The richest people in the world own their own businesses. Massive wealth comes from massive leverage – of other people's time and other people's money." - anonymous

i.imgur.com...

That is what the stock market is for, for stockholders who give money to corporations to get a return on their investment. Like everything else on the planet, it comes with risk.
Incidentally, the word "stakeholder" is a big buzzword of Agenda 21, the newest model of Communism available.

Even Barack talked about people having "a stake in the kind of World Order" he thinks everyone wants.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Druscilla
...
Socialism, however, aint bad.

Really?... Tell that to the 120 million to 140 million people murdered under socialist systems in the past 87-90 years...

Tell that tto the millions more put in gulags, and indoctrination camps because they wouldn't become "good socialists"...

No, that's fascism. Those countries you're talking about had fascist systems pretending to be socialist, in the same way people say "communist" China when it isn't communism, it's fascism. Most governments in the world are fascist, that's why we have barely any freedom, and do things like argue amongst ourselves what things like socialism are, because the facts have been warped.

People don't even know what words like socialism, anarchism, or liberterian even mean because they've been taught to believe they're something else. If people understood the meaning of these words properly they wouldn't be divided so much, and would be pursuing them more to try and make things fairer, to stop a small group of people from having most of the power and money, and so on.

You're mixing fascism up with socialism.

Originally posted by CB328

Socialist countries in Europe generally have high standards of living compared to much of the world, so your point is wrong.

A hybrid system, sort of like what we have (or used to) is probably best.

Is that why there are so many riots in Europe because they are perfect systems helping everyone?...

We don't even see the amount of riots in the U.S. that we see in SMALLER countries in Europe...

As for "higher standards"... is that why Greece is bankrupt? Or Spain is right behind it?... Is that why there are more rapes, and crimes in Europe than ever before?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I appreciate what you are saying. But public schools are run by taxpayers paying for stuff whether they have kids or not, therefore it is a kind of redistribution, though the engineers of society assume that most people will have children during their lifetime. They just figure it all works out in the end. But think of senior citizens still paying into the education system and trying to live on what they get from their SS funds with the rising cost of everything....think of the parents who not have to pay for their grown kids college having to still pay for younger people kids in public schools...this is why public education as well as SS and medicare and Obamacare are all aspects of socialism. And Obamacare is just the process of nationalizing healthcare, though they are doing it all at once, but what choice have we now? We have to buy insurance or pay a fine. They will work toward getting single payer, so this is just a stop a long the way.
And of course we all grew up with it, and now teachers in public unions make more than the average private citizen working a similar job and we have to pay for all that.
In a privatized system, everyone would pay for their own kids education and that's that. Public schools were devised to help poor people get educated as well as to pool resources together, because otherwise kids would get educated at home.

reply to post by robhines


Fascism is a socialist system... Mussolini was a lifelong SOCIALIST, and if you read the FASCIST manifesto it has and I quote...

...
The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

en.wikipedia.org...

Mussolini just differed in some ideas with the other socialists in Italy, he believed that just through violent revolt, just like in communism, could a capitalist system become fascist/socialist. The main difference between communism and fascism is that Mussolini believed in CLASS COLLABORATION instead of class struggle.

Benito Mussolini

...
Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was expelled from the PSI due to his opposition to the party's stance on neutrality in World War I. Mussolini denounced the PSI and joined the group of left politicians who supported Italian intervention against Austria-Hungary that held Italian-populated lands in its territories. He founded the Fascist movement during the conflict.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

He had some different ideas from other socialists, but this didn't make him any less socialist. Heck, Stalin and Lenin had different ideas on communism, one believe in internationl communism, and the other on national communism, did that make them any less communists?...

Hitler was also a SOCIALIST, the word NAZI is an abbreviation of the German concept of NAtionalsoZIalismus, or National SOCIALISM...

If you look at the programs implemented by Hitler, as well as Mussolini, they were socialists, but just like other forms of socialism, and like ALL socialists, they thought they knew "better than everyone else what is best for all"...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by robhines

 

Fascism is a socialist system... Mussolini was a lifelong SOCIALIST, and if you read the FASCIST manifesto it has and I quote...

...
The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).

en.wikipedia.org...

Mussolini just differed in some ideas with the other socialists in Italy, he believed that just through violent revolt, just like in communism, could a capitalist system become fascist/socialist. The main difference between communism and fascism is that Mussolini believed in CLASS COLLABORATION instead of class struggle.

Benito Mussolini

...
Originally a member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and editor of the Avanti! from 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was expelled from the PSI due to his opposition to the party's stance on neutrality in World War I. Mussolini denounced the PSI and joined the group of left politicians who supported Italian intervention against Austria-Hungary that held Italian-populated lands in its territories. He founded the Fascist movement during the conflict.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

He had some different ideas from other socialists, but this didn't make him any less socialist. Heck, Stalin and Lenin had different ideas on communism, one believe in internationl communism, and the other on national communism, did that make them any less communists?...

Hitler was also a SOCIALIST, the word NAZI is an abbreviation of the German concept of NAtionalsoZIalismus, or National SOCIALISM...

If you look at the programs implemented by Hitler, as well as Mussolini, they were socialists, but just like other forms of socialism, and like ALL socialists, they thought they knew "better than everyone else what is best for all"...

edit on 9-3-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Yes to everything in this post.
Both Hitler and Mussolini employed elements of Totalitarianism which are in both Socialism and Communism...that is that people are required to do things for the good of society and many elements of personal life are controlled by central planning and bureaucrats. Mainly I am just augmenting what you said for other's benefit since you already know this stuff.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hahah, Mussolini and Hitler were clearly fascist! You're proving my point about corrupt leaders pretending to be socialist when they're actually fascist. Mussolini and Hitler didn't apply real socialism. How could they have when they're so clearly known for the fascist things they did?

Anyway, you finish by generalizing every single person that believes socialism can work as thinking they know more about what's better for everyone else than anyone else, so I may as well just quit trying with you. You can't generalize such a big group of people like that, it just ruins any argument you have.

Again : the socialism you're thinking of isn't socialism, it's fascism applied by corrupt leaders and groups that pretend it's socialism. Just like people in the west saying we're living in a democracy when we're clearly not.

reply to post by robhines


Maybe this will help

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.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...

www.prisonplanet.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes to everything in this post.
Both Hitler and Mussolini employed elements of Totalitarianism which are in both Socialism and Communism...

Show me where totalinarianism exists in libertarian socialism. There's different types of socialism.

How are people ever going to wake up when even the people that find their way to a site like this are so clueless about simple things like what socialism is? It takes a few minutes reading a simple wiki page on socialism to see there's several different types, and it takes less than a second to remember that Hitler was fascist so anything else he said he was isn't true.

How is this hard to explain?

It's not hard to explain at all.

Anyone here can clearly type in "socialism wikipedia" in a search engine and learn in minutes, but instead they'd rather crusade for long periods of time against what they have decided is evil so it must be. Why would you do that when you're supposedly looking for the truth? You're just deceiving yourselves, and in turn, others. That's not denying ignorance, it's promoting it. The blind leading the blind.

Like I said, it's sad, and often depressing when you see the scale of this problem.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Sorry but that doesn't help at all if you're saying Hitler was a socialist. Hitler was not a socialist, Mussolini was not a socialist. (they might have been at some point, and they sure pretended to be by the looks of it, but they were also fascist.) Your idea of socialism is probably that everything is surrendered to the state and that's the only way it can be applied, but that's wrong, because some forms of socialism have opposite goals.

You're generalizing socialism and trying to defend your idea of it when you've not researched it properly. I noticed the link is prison planet, if Alex Jones (if he does, can't remember.) screams and shouts about socialism being evil it shows his ignorance too, just like Mike Adams from Natural News showed his complete ignorance recently when writing about how state socialism is evil.

It doesn't show anything like that. What it does show is this : when state socialism is applied, which is opposite to liberterian socialism, and then corrupt people start warping it to their own ends, you have fascism.

State socialism means nationalize everything, liberterian socialism means instead of nationalizing, let the people run everything via co-operative ownership. In the first case you cut the corporate corruption out if done right, in the second case you cut out both corporate and government corruption (at least to a large degree.)

Researching these things doesn't take long.

www.youtube.com...

Socialism and communism failed because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No matter how idealistic they start out the perks of power lure them like Luke's dad to the dark side of the force.

As a concept it's great, but it won't work without a more people based leadership structure.

Capitalism isn't perfect but works in the interest of those who want to work and actually get somewhere in life. Socialism is just a freebie for the lazy and will actually cause more inequality than equality. Like in the Chinese proverbs

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Also Quoted by Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous"

and you may ask well how do i get them out of this poverty? Well its simple let there be a supply of work and a need for workers as simple as that, Let the Freemarket look for its workers and for its best workers in certain abilities.

Fascism is the forced application of socialistic policy.

(Did I get that right?)

Originally posted by beezzer
Fascism is the forced application of socialistic policy.

(Did I get that right?)

Fascism is forcing things on the population without their consent, so it's not any type of anything really, apart from fascism and totalinarianism.

Originally posted by tecunuman911
Capitalism isn't perfect but works in the interest of those who want to work and actually get somewhere in life. Socialism is just a freebie for the lazy and will actually cause more inequality than equality. Like in the Chinese proverbs

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

Also Quoted by Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous"

and you may ask well how do i get them out of this poverty? Well its simple let there be a supply of work and a need for workers as simple as that, Let the Freemarket look for its workers and for its best workers in certain abilities.

We don't have a true capitalist system anymore, we have corporatism.

In capitalism innovation and competition drive the market on a fair playing field.


Middle class consumers drive the economy and produce jobs with spending. As the money dries up so does the economy, it's gotten too top heavy.

Originally posted by robhines

Originally posted by beezzer
Fascism is the forced application of socialistic policy.

(Did I get that right?)

Fascism is forcing things on the population without their consent, so it's not any type of anything really, apart from fascism and totalinarianism.

Would it still be fascism then if they forced freedom, liberty, values, individualism, on a populace?

Originally posted by tecunuman911
Socialism is just a freebie for the lazy

Totally wrong. Again socialism is just being completely misrepresented. You could just as easily say capitalism is just a freebie for the corporate bosses and government leaders as they steal from the population. It doesn't describe it properly at all.

Have tried to explain this several times now but this is a badly ingrained set of misconceptions, delusions, and you could even say programming, and I can't carry on because I don't really feel like I'm getting anywhere.

Just research socialism if you're going to label it as something. Ask yourself, honestly, "Does this really explain what socialism is properly? Have I researched socialism properly or have I just believed what people have said about socialism?" Look at what socialism is, what it means, the different types of it, the history of it, the evolution of the idea of it. There's nothing wrong with learning about it, and you save yourself being led by people with agendas, delusions, and a lack of knowledge.

I only came into this thread because I've actually been researching it a little recently. Note that I said "little." I know even after doing that, that a huge amount of the posts in this thread have statements in them that are completely wrong. A lot of people just don't seem to know what they're talking about with this subject, and that's not to try and offend, it's to hopefully nudge a few people who are genuinely looking for knowledge and truth towards researching it themselves a little too.