Socialism: The Tool of the Nobility

If you trace the ruling families of Europe, from their Empires, and their Kingdoms, they are not dead, they are not poor, they have become the leadership of socialist regimes. The concept is nothing new, so in fact we must consider that the concept is in fact human nature. Ancient Rome was a socialist country. The Patrician class had a servant class called Clients. Clients owed their allegiance to a Patrician family in exchange for services. The Patricians protected their clients, from legal action by others outside the family, from hardship when their farms or business did not make a surplus or ran a deficit in hard times.

But, while the Patricians protected the client, the client were still servants to a noble family.

Let's fast forward through all the Middle Ages, which were an extension of the Roman Nobility system into a Germanic cultural fusion....and come to the 1800s, the fall of these great Aristocratic families, especially in France, were short lived.

By 1830 France was again ruled by Nobility and had a King, and France and her communes, the seeds of Socialism were born here.

The fusion between the Noble Patrician and the poor Client on an Industrial level, never would the aristocrat have to be afraid of the serf again, the two are permanently married in the same ancestral relationship of Rome.

The poor receive their Dole from the Government firmly in the hands of the same noble families that ruled that government in the days of the Kings.

This method of control was methodical, it spread from France to Britain, to Germany, Germany in particular found creative ways to permanently enslave their people, so that even after the Revolution of November 1918, through the Rise of the Nazis, all the way to present day, not only are these same families still largely in control of Germany (Minus those pesky Prussians who were almost all exterminated), but the same Companies survived those supposedly tumultuous decades as well!

And in America the same disease is growing, an an elite aristocracy of politicians and corporate welfare suckers, use the government to buy votes from the poor, leaving the middle class to Rot on the Vine.

The middle class has at last awoken in the form of the Tea Party. We shall see how long that can last.

I think your assessment is on the money except for one thing.
Rome was not Socialist.
I do not want to argue this, but you go right ahead if you want.















r

What else would you call it? I mean without nitpicking and semantics?

Rome was a state ruled by a politburo called the Senate which was restricted to Patrician classes, which was tempered by Tribunes who could not be harmed by their tenure which had only veto power, who were elected by the Plebeians aka the Proletariat.

The state was ruled in dictatorship by two consuls who alone had veto power over each other as long as they had no interference by the Tribunes. The Consuls had to come from the Patrician class and until Pompey and Crassus they had to go through a specific chain of offices before getting to be eligible for election of Consul.

So that is their political structure in a nutshell.

Now what was his name, the Adelle? Who was in charge of the Public Dole? This was the most socialist feature of Rome, the public dole consisted of Bread, wine, pork, and access to public baths. That right there is our Welfare, food stamps, and health care all rolled into one.

Individually, a Patrician performed the role of socialist, and gave to their clients whatever their clients wanted in exchange for votes. Yes, the Patricians flat out bought votes with promises of laws (this lead to the Gracchi Brother's great troubles when trying to conduct land reform), or promise of money and etc.

Yes, this isn't industrial socialism of today.

This is agrarian socialism.

But it is about as socialist as you can get back then, don't forget at all the trade unions which had an iron grip on industry in Rome, or in Constantinople.

Lastly, modern socialism is born of this relationship, not from Marx's views of socialism which he thought would transform into Communism.

Obviously socialists in Europe disagreed, because Hitler was a socialist and hated Communism.

The European socialist has no intention of becoming a communist butterfly.

reply to post by FreeMason

Sounds like Democrats to me.

Sounds like Democrats to me also, however, I do not hold the Democrats to be Socialist.

reply to post by FreeMason


The original idea of socialism was to abollish class altogether. There wouldn't be a patrician class rulling over the proles at all, just the proles rulling their selves. What was called socialism in the 20th century was, however, functionally the same as Roman aristocracy. You had a few elites, at the highest echelons of the Communist party, controlling and owning everything. Now, in their rhetoric, they said they represented the will of the people, and that the state collectively owned everything on their behalf, but this was simply rhetoric and nothing more. I don't really like using cute words like "fascism" or "socialism" or "corporatism" or "monarchy" to describe highly stratified, vertical hierarchical power structures, because it misses the point. All I think that matters is recognizing the functionality of totalitarianism and how it opperates, because it can be achieved with any (and I mean any) rhetorical point. I'm afraid that in America were gonna be so busy waiting for it to manifest in the form of the fascism or communism, that were going to completely overlook it coming about in other ways.

reply to post by JNathanK


zakktly.
2nd verse.

JNathanK
reply to post by FreeMason

 

The original idea of socialism was to abollish class altogether. There wouldn't be a patrician class rulling over the proles at all, just the proles rulling their selves. What was called socialism in the 20th century was, however, functionally the same as Roman aristocracy. You had a few elites, at the highest echelons of the Communist party, controlling and owning everything. Now, in their rhetoric, they said they represented the will of the people, and that the state collectively owned everything on their behalf, but this was simply rhetoric and nothing more. I don't really like using cute words like "fascism" or "socialism" or "corporatism" or "monarchy" to describe highly stratified, vertical hierarchical power structures, because it misses the point. All I think that matters is recognizing the functionality of totalitarianism and how it opperates, because it can be achieved with any (and I mean any) rhetorical point. I'm afraid that in America were gonna be so busy waiting for it to manifest in the form of the fascism or communism, that were going to completely overlook it coming about in other ways.

Eh without getting too Marxist, socialism is not a classless society.

The US is "classless" and ironically the socialists are the ones who are creating class by making class warfare.

But what I'm referring to are the very real "Socialists" of Europe who were Aristocrats who wanted to use the Government dole to secure the loyalty of the people in an age of Democracy. These philosophies are real.

Just read Bismarck on why he created a Social Security net in Germany....it was to control the people, and he married it to Military Service to create a permanent Military state for Germany.

Fascism. A merger of state and corporate power. The central planners and their control of currency.

Yes, the old aristocracy still runs the game, but socialists? Nah.

The idea that printing trillions and getting it into the hands of banks and hedge funds for zero cost of money, while the middle class and main street ****** rot? Well, really, what did you expect? Is this not a nation ruled by the 1%? If you were the 1%, what would you do? That's right, you would print to infinity and make sure it all came to you with a zero percent cost of money.

Yet we hear America is a socialist cradle to grave welfare state? People who make that claim have an agenda, for the truth escapes them, and I believe it escapes them on purpose. Congress and the President are openly bribed by Corporate millions, and we say the old folks are stealing all the money because they get back a portion of the fortune they have paid in in with holding tax for the SS and Medicre social insurance programs.

Who is fooling who around here? Seriously? Check out income division, check out the manipulated value of stocks, check out QE and Zirp, check out corporate profits. Yet is always falls back onto the little taxpayer who might get an SS check when he gets old. HE is the problem! God, people buy into that ****?

-Jack Burton

reply to post by FreeMason


Nice to see someone else spotted the elitist Wolf dressed in the socialist sheepskin.

Fabian Stain Glass Window installed with honors at the London School of Economics, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton presiding.

Close-up of the WOLF

The London School of Economics is where the world leaders in politics, baning and industry are trained.

FreeMason




Eh without getting too Marxist, socialism is not a classless society.

The US is "classless" and ironically the socialists are the ones who are creating class by making class warfare.

But what I'm referring to are the very real "Socialists" of Europe who were Aristocrats who wanted to use the Government dole to secure the loyalty of the people in an age of Democracy. These philosophies are real.

Just read Bismarck on why he created a Social Security net in Germany....it was to control the people, and he married it to Military Service to create a permanent Military state for Germany.

Well, I'm not arguing what socialist leaders actually do in practice, just what they say. They claim to want to create a classless society of economically empowered proletarians that own the means of production, but this, as we know, isn't what has happened in the aftermath socialist "revolutions".

Like I said though, at some point, using these terms misses the point though, because if enough people mistrust socialism, they'll just try to sidetrack everyone with a new ideology that they're more susceptible to. If everyone's in fear of communism, they'll just come up with uncommunist rhetoric to sell dependency to an elite class (as was the case with fascism). If enslavement is the true agenda, they say their true cause is freedom. If class hierachy is the true agenda, they sell it as class abolition. They'll figure out some convoluted line of logic to screw with enough peoples heads to get what they want. The last thing they'll do is be honest, because they couldn't get enough popular support if their real intentions were openly known.

I wouldn't say the US is classless either. There may be, currently, more upward mobility than some other places in the world, but that's changing fast with the collapse of the middle class. That aside, theres's just some positions we can't possibly be in, no matter how hard we work. Sure, u may be able to become a millionaire, or even a billionare if enough initiative is put in and u have enough natural tallent, but you'll never be in the place of a Rockefeller or a Rothschild. Having direct influence over the federal reserve banking system is a position that's securely occupied by a few families.

Oh, really?

The United States are a classless society?

You don't say.

On the contrary, I submit to you the US are two countries.

The one of the halves and the one of the don'ts.

Maybe even three.

The halves, their gate keepers and enforcers and the don'ts.

You think the banker and financier parasitic classes don't exist above you?

Who make money out of money they conjure up out of thin air by the trillions of dollars each year or who make money from being money laundering proxies for that money that is conjured up out of thin air by the trillions each year?

You think you have the same rights, amenities, say and political and societal clout as those folk?

I got a bridge I'd like to sell ya.

Enjoy your neofeudalism.

Hey, at least it's not socialism, right?

God forbid someone should just chop off some of that obscene peak in the personal wealth of the wealthiest 1% and redistribute it to the rest of the population.

No, you can't have that, now can you?

That would be socialist and democratic.

To take back from the robber what he stole.

I think each people gets what they deserve, eventually.

"The Top 20% has more wealth than 90% of Americans think they SHOULD have."

I didn't know that the idea of liberty was that you had a right to pursue only what others think you should have.

"You have a right to the pursuit of happiness others will allow you". Oh never mind, it was right there in the Constitution all along.

Correct, Socialism is a washed-up term from the 1800s, that these elitists are already transforming in the guise of Climate Change.

Is there any reason that wealth redistribution, poor idiots, and super wealthy, go hand-in-hand with Climate Change?

Is there any reason that climate change comes straight out of the UK, the last peerage in the world worth a $##T?

Climate Change is today's "socialism", working for the interests of the Nobility.

Just listen to this guy's PEERAGE! Then he exposes the beans.

www.youtube.com...

Are you talking to yourself now or did you just forget to switch accounts?

reply to post by Pejeu


If you were reading the thread you'd know who I was replying to.

FreeMason
"The Top 20% has more wealth than 90% of Americans think they SHOULD have."

I didn't know that the idea of liberty was that you had a right to pursue only what others think you should have.

"You have a right to the pursuit of happiness others will allow you". Oh never mind, it was right there in the Constitution all along.

# your liberty.

It will end at the end of a gun barrel and rightfully so.

I hope you go all the way when the second revolution starts.

Be sure to be on the front lines for your beloved 1%.

As your own military wipes you out.

BTW, I love the sheer hypocrisy you espouse.

Pretend to lament the inequality, the concentration of wealth.

But when concrete suggestions for amendments are suggested to reduce the unfairness, the inequality, the theft?

Fight against them tooth and nail.

Typical right winger.

FreeMason
"The Top 20% has more wealth than 90% of Americans think they SHOULD have."

If the question was framed correctly it would have asked something like the following: " Do you think the richest 20% of the country should be able to manipulate the economy in such way as to allow them to accumulate 90% of resources/wealth". If perhaps the citizens were not being educated into becoming somewhat competent factory/office workers, who also lack the self control to do anything other than spend every cent they earn, the questions could be stated more completely without making it incomprehensible to most?

I didn't know that the idea of liberty was that you had a right to pursue only what others think you should have.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps one can best sum up the not especially noble intentions of the founding fathers by nothing that the Bill of rights was an AMENDMENT to the constitution. The fact that it exists at all, in whatever vague terms it employs, speaks much to whatever greatness we can agree exists in the American model of government and yet that should not turn us from as democratic duty of cynicism.

The issue is not if people should be allowed to be highly successful but how a country can continue to function if the system allows a few to rob the vast majority of the opportunity to be even modestly so. Having said that what in your mind forms the logical connection between freedom and having billions of dollars in net worth? Are only billionaires and multi millionaires 'free'? If all money is created with debt ( as per how the fed works) then wealth accumulation is in fact a zero sum game so how can the 'pursuit' of 'liberty' then be reconciled with the pursuit of happiness? In fact i think i have now confused myself with these vague notions of pursuing happiness and 'liberty' and such.

"You have a right to the pursuit of happiness others will allow you". Oh never mind, it was right there in the Constitution all along.

edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Insofar as people are allowed to pursue happiness i wish they instead said that people should be allowed to catch happiness without having to discard most religious principles in the process. When your monetary system works is based on zero sum principles ( someone must lose for others to gain) there is no practical way to facilitate individual pursuits/guarantees of happiness and liberty other than by centralized state intervention which gets you right back into trouble.

Perhaps you can help me out here....

Stellar

FreeMason
If you trace the ruling families of Europe, from their Empires, and their Kingdoms, they are not dead, they are not poor, they have become the leadership of socialist regimes. The concept is nothing new, so in fact we must consider that the concept is in fact human nature. Ancient Rome was a socialist country. The Patrician class had a servant class called Clients. Clients owed their allegiance to a Patrician family in exchange for services. The Patricians protected their clients, from legal action by others outside the family, from hardship when their farms or business did not make a surplus or ran a deficit in hard times.

Rubbish.

I don't know where you get this stuff and apparently you don't either as their are no, even poor, references or sources for your suppositions.

Pejeu
Oh, really?

The United States are a classless society?

You don't say.

On the contrary, I submit to you the US are two countries.

The one of the halves and the one of the don'ts.

Maybe even three.

The halves, their gate keepers and enforcers and the don'ts.

Well Said - Good Visual Aids Too - A

reply to post by StellarX


Because the Fed is unconstitutional. It shouldn't exist in this country.

And the free market in this country also hasn't existed for a very long time.

We've allowed the government to step in and make it very, very difficult for there to be true competition. It advantages the very, very large at the expense of everyone else. Many are mistaken in thinking government does this for our protection. "Oh, we NEED the EPA! Oh, we NEED the USDA and the FDA! We HAVE to have licenses for everything ..." But most of what these agencies do is drive little businessmen out of competition and only the very large survive, and with every new round of rules in the name of "protecting" you, more businesses are closed leaving less competition for the big guys who get richer.

Do you see how the system accumulated power to itself because it really isn't a free market?

Maybe if there was true competition and lots of little dogs, it would be much, much harder for the gross accumulations of wealth you so abhor.