Divergent Paths—The Vision of Our Founders vs. the Plan of Marx

[capitalism is good]

Here is a great article written by a survivor of Socialism/Marxism. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/44196)

Excerpt:



Marx believed that the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat by keeping them in chains. He urged, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.” Classical socialists believed that socialism was an imperfect stage before communism, where the means of production were owned by the state and workers were paid hourly for their work.

Margaret Thatcher had once said, “The problem with socialism is that, at some point, you run out of other people’s money.” She was referring to the deliberate attempt by a centralized socialist government to confiscate by various means and redistribute wealth they viewed as unfairly earned at the expense of the masses.
Communism abolished classes and the workers were paid for their needs not for the work they performed—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This brings to mind the motto Romanian workers adopted under communism in order to survive: “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.”
There is no such thing as “equal” or “shared” (”communis” means “shared” in Latin) in communism. There is equal misery, equal suffering, equal mistreatment, and equal poverty. We shared constant shortages of food, rationing of necessities, water, energy, and heat.


The writer was from Romania. Most people in East Europe approve (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism)the change to capitalism.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1396-2.gif

Excerpt from first link:



Karl Marx, “the original hippie,” was negligent with his own family and “detested manual labor, preferring to dream up ideas about mooching from others and spreading their wealth around.” A report written in1852 by a Prussian police agent described a man who rarely washed, combed, or changed his linens, idle for days on end, an intellectual Bohemian. (Michael Savage, Trickle Up Poverty)
“There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture to be found in the whole apartment: everything is broken, tattered and torn…in one word everything is topsy turvy… When you enter Marx’s room, smoke and tobacco fumes make your eyes water so badly, that you think for a moment that you are groping about in a cave… Everything is dirty and covered with dust. It is positively dangerous to sit down. One chair has three legs. On another chair, which happens to be whole, the children are playing at cooking.” (Michael Savage, Trickle Up Poverty, 64, quoting Eugene Kamenka, The Portable Karl Marx, 41-42)
Marx cherished his philosophical ideas more than his responsibilities to his family because he relied on wealthy patrons such as Friedrich Engels, communist sponsors, and inheritances to care for his family. He died a pauper. (Michael Savage, Trickle Up Poverty, 65)


Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?

[¿Que?]

There is a difference between communism as Marx theorized it and communism as it was attempted. Any argument attempting to conflate the two is misleading and dishonest.

Then you attack Marx not on the merit of his ideas, but on his lifestyle choices. How is that relevant?

EDIT: And all that statics shows is the degree to which people in this country are living in poverty. Furthermore, sales tax, toll roads,state income taxes, property taxes...

[Ostrinski]

The Ceaușescu regime is the probably the furthest deviation from socialist state that you could have possibly chosen, save maybe Cambodia. A criticism of the regime is not in any remote way a criticism of communism.


Marx was a bum and his philoshopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life.
And?


His ideology produced the welfare state
No, it didn't. You haven't shown us anything in Marx's writings to substantiate this shit, you just post rubbish by right-wing radio personalities (How you possibly have the wherewithall to post Michael Savage on a leftist forum is beyond me).

[manic expression]

The writer was from Romania. Most people in East Europe approve (http://www.anonym.to/?http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism)the change to capitalism.
From the link:

One of the most positive trends in Europe since the fall of the Wall is a decline in ethnic hostilities among the people of former communist countries. In a number of nations, fewer citizens say they hold unfavorable views of ethnic minorities than did so in 1991.

HahaahAHaaaaaaaahahahahahahHHHAAAAAAahahahahaaha

Oh, oh man, oh wow, that's really, really f*cking funny. Wait, I should take a breath...

OK. You do know that speaking Hungarian was recently illegalized (http://www.euronews.net/2009/07/21/hungary-criticises-slovakian-language-ban/) in Slovakia, even though many Slovakian towns have a majority Hungarian population, right? You do know that at least two bonafide wars of ethnic cleansing broke out as a direct result of the fall of socialism, right (Yugoslavia and the Caucuses, to name just two)? You do know that racism is 100x worse in Eastern Europe than it's been since WWII, right? Ever heard of the present-day political scene in Potsdam?

Honestly, you're clueless. Since you're such a capitalist apologist, go buy one (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html).

[citizen of industry]

Here is a great article written by a survivor of Socialism/Marxism. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/44196)

Excerpt:



The writer was from Romania. Most people in East Europe approve (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism)the change to capitalism.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1396-2.gif

Excerpt from first link:



Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?

Here's a great article that shows what a cesspool Romania has become after the collapse of the communist regime and how the majority of people there despise capitalism: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23616


Just before Christmas Day in 2010, a distraught public-television engineer protesting the government’s controversial economic policies hurled himself off a balcony in the Rumanian parliament during a speech by the country’s prime minister. The man, who survived the suicide attempt, reportedly shouted before jumping: “You took the bread away from the mouths of our children! You killed the future of our children!” The hospitalized protester, dressed in a t-shirt declaring “You have killed our future!”, was later identified as 41-year-old Adrian Sobaru, whose autistic teenage son had recently lost government assistance as part of Bucharest’s latest budget-cutting steps. His attempted suicide was broadcast live on Rumania’s public TV as Prime Minister Emil Boc spoke ahead of an unsuccessful no-confidence vote against his conservative cabinet. The fiscal and wage austerity measures that Mr. Sobaru was protesting included a 25% pay cut for all civil servants like him as well as severe reductions in social-assistance payments to parents with disabled children, which he had also been receiving until recently. According to Rumania’s Agerpres news agency, the man’s desperate cries in the parliamentary hall were painfully echoing those heard during the 1989 anti-Communist revolution that toppled Rumania’s maverick and generally pro-Western regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu.

Economic turmoil

Mr. Sobaru’s tragic leap, later telecast all over the world, struck a sympathetic chord with many Rumanians who saw it as a symbol of the savage inequities and injustices of the post-Communist period. Rumania is mired in a severe recession and its battered economy is expected to decline by at least 2% in 2010, after contracting by 7.1% the previous year. Instead of trying to assist the unemployed and the socially weak, the Bucharest government, which is reportedly riddled with corruption, cronyism and nepotism, has slashed public-sector pay by one-quarter and trimmed all social expenditures, including heating subsidies for the poor as well as unemployment, maternity, and disability benefits. At the same time, the national sales tax was hiked from 19% to 24%, as the authorities are striving to hold the national deficit down to 6.8% in order to meet the stringent fiscal requirements of the European Union (EU), which Rumania had joined in January 2007.

These harsh austerity policies have angered millions of Rumanians who are barely making ends meet in a nation where the average monthly per capita income is about $400. Angry street protests that have gathered tens of thousands of Rumanians reflect the deep dissatisfaction with mass poverty and the continuing economic crisis, which took Rumania to the edge of bankruptcy. “This isn’t capitalism, in capitalist countries you have a middle class,” one Bucharest-based convenience store manager told an Associated Press reporter. But Rumanian society, she complained, is divided between a tiny minority of very rich people and a vast impoverished underclass.[1]

While the human tragedy witnessed in the Rumanian Parliament on that pre-Christmas day is quite symptomatic of the Balkan country’s pervasive misery and crushed hopes for a better life, it could have easily taken place in any other of the crisis nations of the ex-Communist world who are equally suffering from high unemployment, massive poverty, declining wages, and severe cuts in public spending and living standards. At about the time of Mr. Sobaru’s desperate suicide attempt, many of the Czech Republic’s 20,000 hospital doctors were quitting their jobs en masse to protest the decision of Prime Minister Petr Necas’s cabinet to cut all public expenditures, including healthcare spending, by at least 10% in order to keep the country's troubled finances afloat. These mass resignations were part of the “Thanks, We Are Leaving” campaign launched by disgruntled physicians across the country aimed at putting pressure on the Prague authorities to increase their low wages and provide better working conditions for all medical workers. Confronted with the worst healthcare crisis in the ex-Communist country’s history which was endangering the lives of many patients, the Czech government threatened to impose a state of emergency which would force doctors either to get back to work or face harsh legal and financial penalties.

One may also recall the largely unreported 2009 food riots in Latvia, the much lauded “Baltic miracle” darling of the mainstream Western media, where the deeply unpopular incumbent Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis was re-elected in 2010 despite having severely cut public expenditures and Latvians’ already meager living standards (the election campaign focused instead on the nasty clash between Latvian nationalists and the country’s sizeable and restive Russian-speaking minority). According to Professor Michael Hudson, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, as sharp government cutbacks in social welfare, education, healthcare, public transportation, and other basic social-infrastructure spending threaten to undermine economic security, long-term development, and political stability across the ex-Soviet bloc countries, young people are emigrating in droves to better their lives rather than suffer in an economy without any employment opportunities. For example, more than 12% of the total population of Latvia (and a much larger percentage of its labor force) now works abroad.

When the “neo-liberal bubble” burst in 2008, Professor Hudson writes, Latvia’s conservative government borrowed heavily from the EU and IMF on punishing repayment terms that have imposed such harsh austerity policies that the Latvian economy shrank by 25% (neighboring Estonia and Lithuania have experienced an equally steep economic decline) and unemployment, currently running at 22%, is still rising. With well over a tenth of its population now working abroad, Latvia’s guest-workers send home whatever they can spare to help their destitute families survive. Latvian children (what few of them there are as the Baltic country’s marriage and birth rates are plunging) have been thus “left orphaned behind,” prompting social scientists to wonder how this small nation of 2.3 million people can survive demographically.[2] These are the results of post-Communist austerity budgets that have cut ordinary people off at the knees while international creditors and local bankers are bailed out.

The rise of right-wing populism

The deep economic crisis and rising unemployment throughout the ex-Communist world has brought to power some radical political parties and politicians embracing right-wing nationalist populism. Hungary’s Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Union), an unabashedly right-wing nationalist party, won 52.73% of the vote in the April 2010 parliamentary elections. Jobbik (Movement for Better Hungary), a xenophobic far-right party, came third with 16.67% of votes. In the midst of a disastrous economic slump, the nationalist Right won most of the popular vote by reviving traditional Hungarian scape-goating of ethnic minorities and blaming Jews and Gypsies in particular for the country’s widespread joblessness and poverty. When Oszkár Molnár, a Fidesz leading member elected to the new parliament, proclaimed: “I love Hungary, I love Hungarians, and I prefer Hungarian interests to global financial capital, or Jewish capital which wants to devour the whole world, but especially Hungary,” he was not even publicly rebuked by any of his party colleagues.

In December 2010, Fidesz’s two-thirds majority in parliament allowed it to push through a draconian media law, which gave the government more freedom to exercise strict control over the private media. This controversial new law triggered demonstrations in the streets of Budapest with many Hungarians carrying empty placards to protest the proposed government censorship. It also drew criticisms in the European Parliament (Hungary became an EU member in May 2004) for being a “threat to press freedom” and a “serious danger to democracy” by providing for huge fines and other legal penalties for media and Internet outlets which dare to publish or broadcast “unbalanced” or “immoral” information, especially one that is critical of the government, in a nation where one in three lives below the poverty line. Critics have complained that Europe’s most restrictive media law will stifle pluralism and turn the clock back on democracy in this former Communist country.

The German press especially has vilified Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán not for only trying to muzzle the local media, but also for seeking a one-party Fidesz rule and turning Hungary into a totalitarian “Führerstaat” (Hungarian commentators have likewise complained of their country’s creeping “Orbánization”). Károly Vörös, chief editor of the Hungarian daily Népszabadság, has complained that the new media law wants to “burn a sense of fear into the souls of journalists” and that Hungary’s “entire constitutional state is systematically dissolving.”[3] But sensing strong public support at home given the ugly anti-capitalist, anti-EU, and anti-American mood of ordinary Hungarians caught in the vortex of globalization, the Berlusconi-like populist Orbán has, as in the past, taken a defiant stand, warning the EU to stop meddling into Hungary’s internal affairs: “It is the EU that should adjust to Hungary, not Hungary to the EU…” (Hungary officially took over the rotating six-month EU presidency on January 1, 2011). But what many Hungarians suspect is that the new media law was just a clever ploy to distract public attention from the country’s dire economic problems.

Another autocratic figure, Boyko Borisov, an ex-national police chief with a shady Communist past and reported ties to the local criminal underworld, governs Bulgaria, which became an EU member in January 2007 despite being the most corrupt and criminalized state in the former Eastern bloc apart from the notoriously mafia-ruled Kosovo (another scandalous candidate for future EU membership hoping to join as early as 2015). The electoral success of the Mussolini-like strongman Borisov and his right-wing GERB (Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria) in the July 2009 election was hardly surprising in a country whose plight has become the most emblematic of the region’s aberrant post-Communist trajectory and current malady of discontent. By nearly every macroeconomic indicator, Bulgaria is in a worse shape now than in the Communist past.

Official statistics show that both the annual gross national product (GNP) and the per capita income of the population have plummeted, the social-safety net has disintegrated, and even the physical survival of many impoverished Bulgarians is in peril. The immediate effects of market-oriented “reforms” have been the destruction of Bulgaria’s industry and agriculture, unemployment, inflation, flagrant inequality of incomes, crushing poverty, and even malnutrition. Organized crime and endemic corruption in the form of nepotism and cronyism, graft on the job, embezzlement, bribe-taking, influence-peddling, smuggling, protection rackets, illegal gambling, prostitution and pornography rings have exacted a heavy toll on post-Communist living standards and livelihoods. Another unfortunate effect is the widespread neglect of the economic and social rights of ordinary Bulgarians, for many of whom the 8-hour work day is now only a memory.

The disastrous economic environment has in turn generated a rather volatile and unpredictable political climate. No cabinet government elected during the stormy post-Communist period has survived in office for more than one term (and often even less than that). This volatility illustrates the unstable and unpredictable nature of politics in Bulgaria due to the catastrophic economic situation and the glaring inability of the existing party elites to offer a credible solution to it. Fed up with economic decline, government neglect, high-end thievery, rampant crime and corruption, Bulgarians have time and again cast protest votes against the stranglehold on power by incompetent, self-serving, corrupt, and criminalized cliques of party politicians pursuing personal gain. But the end of their misery seems far from sight, especially as Borisov’s cabinet has now imposed a draconian austerity budget, cutting no less than 20% of all public spending.

At the same time, politics has become by far the most profitable business—more profitable and also much less risky than any profit-making business activity. This has transformed the political parties into something akin to shark-like business corporations—well-organized coteries of unprincipled and predatory rent-seekers aspiring to take over the reigns of power in order to enrich themselves by exploiting the lethargic, cattle-like populace and plundering Bulgaria’s resources, especially now that the country can count on receiving substantial amounts of foreign aid and investment from the EU. Powerful economic interests of often criminal origin have lined up behind and financed each of the major political parties, adding strongly plutocratic elements to what is essentially a kleptocratic, mafia-like oligarchy. That is why ordinary people see no difference between their corruption-riddled government and Bulgaria’s well-organized criminal syndicates. Not surprisingly, Bulgarians tend to refer to their country as a “mafia state,” a “banana republic,” a “circus,” and “Absurd-istan.” They are still awaiting the long-promised arrival of “normal” capitalism and “normal” democracy where personal economic security, livable wages, and decent living standards will replace today’s high unemployment, abject poverty, homelessness, and social despondency. About 1.2 million Bulgarians (16% of the population), mostly young people, have already voted with their feet by seeking greener pastures abroad (poverty-driven emigration has helped reduce post-Communist Bulgaria’s population from close to 9 million in 1989 to around 7 million today).

Collapse of popular support

Soon after the fall of Communism, the former Soviet-bloc countries and other regional ex-Communist states were economically neo-liberalized (quite a few of them were also territorially dismembered) and, except for small pro-Western local elites who made out like bandits, their populations became Third-World poor. Nearly all of these twenty-eight Eurasian countries have experienced a long-term economic decline of catastrophic proportions (only Poland has thus far surpassed its Communist-era GDP). Grave economic setbacks, deep-rooted corruption, and widespread popular frustration with the hardships and deprivations of the seemingly endless post-Communist transition are undermining the prestige of the new authorities and even the population’s belief in Western-style democracy and market-based capitalism. A new breed of rapacious and ruthless plutocrats with insatiable appetites for wealth and power has pillaged—through an unjust and corrupt process of privatization—the assets of the formerly state-owned economy and has recreated at home the worst excesses of 19th-century Dickensian capitalism, as if the social progress of the 20th century had never existed. In the midst of widespread joblessness, penury, malnutrition and even hunger, multimillion-dollar private mansions have sprung up in all major cities as palace-like symbols of ill-gotten gains and of unattainable wealth for ordinary people who are struggling just to find jobs, pay daily bills, and find affordable housing. This “new class” of politically-connected nouveau riche with luxurious La Dolce vita lifestyles seems to be prepared to commit any crime in the interests of profit and quick self-enrichment, operating according to King Louis XV's principle “Après moi, le déluge”and dashing everywhere people’s hopes for improving their lot and modernizing their country along the lines of a “civilized” nation. The only business flourishing in many of the region’s “emerging economies” seems to be organized crime which is usually run by kleptocrats inside the ruling circles.

While this parasitic layer of “new rich” oligarchs is getting richer by the day—in part by evading taxation under the newly adopted system of highly regressive “flat tax” laws—the citizens of the ex-Communist nations now have to pay out of their own pockets for all previously free, government-provided medical services even though they also have to pay income, real-estate, and sales taxes—something they did not have to do under the Communist regimes. There is also the monetization and/or privatization of the previously free educational services, especially in higher education and the new private schools, colleges, and universities where students have to pay for their training, including many fees that each student must pay for taking entrance exams and other mandatory tests required at every level of schooling. Government subsidies for everything from healthcare, education, and legal representation to housing, energy, and public transportation are disappearing in the scramble to slash social spending and trim budget deficits, making it even harder for ordinary people to survive in their daily struggle for existence. The region has become a testing ground to see to what extent workers can be deprived of their social and economic rights, such as a legally-set minimum wage, paid vacations, free and universal access to healthcare, education and legal services, retirement at the age of 60 for men and 55 for women, or even unionization. But despite soaring unemployment and underemployment rates, the iron discipline of the marketplace, and the lack of social welfare or even of most rudimentary social solidarity, the old Communist-era joke “They (the employers) pretend to pay us, we (the employees) pretend to work” seems to be far truer today than it ever was under Communism. For people do not feel like working any harder now for the new private (and often foreign) business owners who seem to be interested only in squeezing as much profit from them for as little pay and as few benefits as possible. At the same time, public education and the sciences, as well as the arts and cultural institutions are all being gutted in the name of saving the “taxpayers’ money” (for example, the national academy of sciences has been closed or is about to be closed in a number of the transition countries).

In these crisis-ridden nations where living standards have seriously deteriorated as unemployment, poverty, pauperism, criminality, as well as alcohol and drug abuse are spreading, along with unaffordable prices for basics like food, housing and fuel, public satisfaction with how the government is actually performing is minimal almost everywhere. And where there is a large discrepancy between popular expectations and government performance in terms of providing necessary public goods and services, as in nearly all post-Communist countries, adherence to democratic attitudes gradually erodes over time. Underperforming regimes which fail to meet public aspirations over long periods of time can lose their legitimacy, risking systemic crisis and instability (e.g., the paradigmatic case of Weimar Germany). Given their appalling living and working conditions, many post-Communist citizens are losing their long-held belief in Western-style capitalism and liberal democracy. Many are also rejecting the very idea that their ex-Communist countries are indeed democratic. The population’s negative perceptions of performance thus cannot but affect democratic attitudes (how the value of democracy is perceived) and hence the so-called “democratic deficit” is statistically quite substantial across the entire region. The local governing elites are slowly losing their legitimacy to rule.

As a result, public protests and social unrest are common, including the dozen or so controversial “color” revolutions—both successful and unsuccessful depending on the extent of Western support for them—against popularly-elected but often deeply unpopular governments. In January 2011, for example, several protesters were shot dead and 150 were wounded during an anti-government demonstration in the Albanian capital Tirana. Albania's conservative Prime Minister Sali Berisha vowed that he would not allow the toppling of his government, but the opposition has held new demonstrations in Tirana and other Albanian cities and has promised to stage even more protests in the future. Supporters of the opposition Socialist Party blame the authorities for widespread financial wrong-doing, pandemic crime and corruption, the run-down economy, and the glaring lack of basic public utilities. They also demand the holding of new elections, accusing the government of massive vote-rigging during the disputed 2009 election which Berisha’s ruling Democrats won by a tiny margin. Tensions further escalated when Berisha publicly accused his Socialist opponents of attempting a “Tunisia-style uprising,” a reference to the recent bloody overthrow of Tunisia’s dictatorial president in which scores were killed. Similar anti-government protests are held regularly in post-Soviet Georgia in spite of the efforts of the “democratic” authorities to crush all dissent. The disgruntled opposition blames Georgia’s strongman Mikheil Saakashvili for the disastrous 2008 war with Russia and for the country’s sinking fortunes. “The overwhelming majority of the population is on the brink of poverty. Nothing is working in Georgia except for the police state,“ Lasha Chkhartishvili of the opposition Conservative Party told visiting foreign journalists in February 2011 during anti-Saakashvili demonstrations around the parliament building in the Georgian capital Tbilisi. “Saakashvili's dictatorial regime is bound to collapse because there is an end to people's patience.“[4]

For the moment, all eyes are on the Muslim world and on the degree to which the pro-democracy efforts of the Arab nations are transforming politics throughout the Greater Middle East. But the tinder for such uprisings exists almost everywhere, especially in the post-Communist parts of the world. Simmering unrest to protest poverty, joblessness, and endemic official thievery after more than 20 years of incompetent, corrupt and deceitful post-Communist governance—combined with the disastrous laissez faire economic experiment across the entire former Soviet bloc—has produced a region-wide instability, where the survival of some West-backed regimes appears increasingly at risk. This is confirmed by unprecedented informal speculation strongly reminiscent of the period before the downfall of Communism—such as many readers’ comments in the local media forums, for example—about the instability and reversibility of the new post-Communist order and its possible replacement by Latin American-style “revolutionary democracy.” This sense of regime insecurity and fragility has been reinforced by the wave of Communist nostalgia sweeping many ex-Communist nations.

Communist nostalgia

There is a great disillusionment with the failed promises of the 1989 revolutions, which have brought a rapid decline in living standards for the majority of former Communist citizens. The widespread exasperation with the impoverishment, corruption, street crime and general social chaos that have accompanied the transition to market-oriented capitalism and Western-style democracy has produced a growing nostalgia for the Communist past among many ordinary people (who are not part of their countries’ new cosmopolitan and pro-Western elites), as they look back with increasing fondness to the “good old times” of Communism—a disturbing trend across the region popularly known as the “Soviet chic.”

According to the recently published Rumanian Evaluation and Strategy Survey, 45% of Rumanians believe they would have lived better if the anti-Communist revolution had not occurred at all. After twenty-one years of turbulent post-Communist life, 61% of the survey participants said they currently live under much worse conditions than they did under Ceauşescu, while only 24% said they are better off now. If these survey results are to be believed (the poll was taken in late 2010 from a sample of 1,476 adults and has an error margin of plus/minus 2.7%), Ceauşescu has turned into a martyr figure that most Rumanians are very sympathetic to. At least 84% of the respondents believe it was a bad thing that he was executed without a fair public trial and 60% even regret his death.[5] According to another recent survey, 59% of Rumanians consider Communism to be a good idea. Some 44% of the respondents think this good idea was poorly applied, while only 15% think it was applied correctly. Just 29% of Rumanians still view Communism as a bad idea. There are no significant differences between men and women with regard to this question, but positive views about Communism are related to age and place of residence. A majority of those older than 40 consider Communism a good idea (including 74% of those older than 60, and 64% of those aged 40-59). But only a minority does so among the younger generation who do not even remember the Ceauşescu regime (49% of those aged 20-39, and just 31% of those younger than 20). Rural respondents have a more positive view—only 21% of them consider Communism a bad idea, compared to 34% of urban respondents.[6] And many Rumanians remember with longing the days when most of them had a steady job, inexpensive state-provided housing, free healthcare, and government-subsidized holidays on the Black Sea coast. “I regret the demise of Communism—not for me, but when I see how much my children and grandchildren struggle,” said a 68-year-old retired mechanic. “We had safe jobs and decent salaries under Communism. We had enough to eat and we had yearly vacations with our children.”[7]

The “Soviet chic” is especially popular among the residents of former East Germany where it is known as “Ostalgie.”[8] According to an article in the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, “Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better-off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany being an illegitimate state.” In a recent poll cited by Der Spiegel, more than half (57%) of ex-East Germans defended the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). “The GDR had more good sides than bad sides. There were some problems, but life was good there,” claimed 49% of those polled. Eight percent of East Germans flatly rejected any criticism of their former homeland or agreed with the statement that “The GDR had, for the most part, good sides. Life there was happier and better than in reunified Germany today.” These poll results which were released on the 20th anniversary since the fall of the Berlin Wall reveal that nostalgia for former East Germany has reached deep into the hearts of many ex-East Germans. It is no longer merely the nostalgic older people who mourn the loss of the GDR. “A new form of Ostalgie has taken shape,” historian Stefan Wolle is quoted as saying. “The yearning for the ideal world of the dictatorship goes well beyond former government officials,” complains Wolle. “Even young people who had almost no experience with the GDR are idealizing it today.”[9]

“Not even half of young people in eastern Germany describe the GDR as a dictatorship, and a majority believe the Stasi was a normal intelligence service,” political scientist Klaus Schroeder, director of a research institute at Berlin’s Free University that studies the former communist state, concluded in a 2008 study of eastern Germany’s youth. “These young people cannot—and in fact have no desire to—recognize the dark sides of the GDR.” Schroeder’s own research gives a shocking insight into the thoughts of many disaffected ex-GDR citizens. “From today’s perspective, I believe that we were driven out of paradise when the Wall came down,” an East German is quoted as saying, while another, a 38-year-old man, thanked God that he had lived in the GDR, because it was not until after German reunification that he saw for the first time in his life homeless people, beggars, and impoverished people who fear for their survival. Today’s Germany is described by many ex-East Germans as a “slave state” and a “capitalist dictatorship,” while some totally reject reunified Germany for being, in their opinion, too capitalist and too dictatorial, and certainly not democratic. Schroeder finds such statements alarming: “I am afraid that a majority of East Germans do not identify with the current sociopolitical system.” According to another ex-East German citizen quoted in the same Der Spiegel article, “In the past, a campground was a place where people enjoyed their freedom together.” And what he misses most today is “that feeling of companionship and solidarity.” His verdict on the GDR is clear: “As far as I’m concerned, what we had in those days was less of a dictatorship than what we have today.” Not only does he want to see again the GDR’s equal wages and equal pensions, but he also complains that people cheat and lie everywhere in unified Germany, and that today’s injustices are simply perpetrated in a more devious way than in the GDR, where starvation wages and street crime were totally unknown.[10]

In reaction to the region-wide spread of Communist nostalgia and also to changes in the domestic climate of opinion where the last Polish Communist leader, General Wojciech Jaruzelski, is far more popular than the formerly revered but now marginalized anti-Communist icon—the ex-Solidarity trade-union chief, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and later president Lech Walesa—Poland’s fervent anti-Communists have revised the criminal code to include an official ban on all symbols of Communism. Under the new law worthy of the medieval Catholic Inquisition, Poles can now be fined and imprisoned if they are caught singing the “International,” for example, or if they carry a red flag, a red star or hammer-and-sickle insignia, and other Communist-era symbols, or even wear a Che Guevara t-shirt. Likewise, the conservative Czech government is trying to outlaw the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (even though the latter won over 11% of the popular vote in the last parliamentary election of May 2010 and is represented in both houses of the national parliament) ostensibly because its leadership refuses to remove the sacrilegious word “Communist” from the party’s name. Several ex-Communist EU members have recently urged Brussels to push for an EU-wide ban on downplaying or denying the crimes of the old Communist regimes. “The principle of justice should assure a just treatment for the victims of every totalitarian regime,” the foreign ministers of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Rumania wrote in a letter to the EU justice commissioner, in which they insisted that “public condoning, denial, and gross trivialization of totalitarian crimes” should be criminalized in every EU country. At the instigation of anti-Communist deputies from the post-Communist countries, the European Parliament has already passed a controversial resolution on “totalitarianism” which equates Communism with Nazism and fascism. But all such punitive measures have hardly curbed the epidemic of Communist nostalgia: the most popular t-shirt among eastern Berliners today is one declaring “Give me back my Wall. And this time make it two meters higher!”

Are the ex-Communist countries next?

With the attention of Western governments and publics now focused on the tumultuous tensions and conflicts in the Arab world, people tend to ignore or forget the crises gripping the ex-Communist nations. Given the rampant inequality, immiseration, government corruption, and organized crime that have characterized the post-Communist order, the situation in these formerly Communist lands is no less combustible than in North Africa and the Middle East, and one of these days it could turn out to be far shakier than is now imagined. Is Tunisia, Egypt or even Libya a likely future scenario for this troubled region?

For now, the long-suffering but very patient citizens of these transition countries are clenching their teeth in the hope that the very next election will bring to power a messianic savior on a white horse who—along with far more generous assistance from the West’s supposedly bottomless pockets—will at long last extricate their bankrupt, poverty-stricken societies from the abyss into which they have fallen. Ordinary people in the post-Communist part of the world believe that their democratic revolutions and high expectations have been betrayed, hijacked or stolen by various “dark forces,” ranging from the ex-Communist elites who have now replaced their former political power with money power, to a corrupt alliance (in the vision of many native leftists) between ambitious local pseudo-“democrats” and greedy Western capitalists, and finally, to an insidious conspiracy involving the IMF, the World Bank, the Soros Foundation, and “international Jewish finance” (usually in the eyes of the nationalist far-right). As Sir Robert Chiltern quips in Oscar Wilde’s witty comedy An Ideal Husband, “When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.”

Only time will tell if the answered prayers of the ex-Communist nations will ultimately prove to be a punishment from above. On the other hand, it may open up new vistas for these struggling nations to resist the crushing power of international banks and multinational corporations by adopting progressive reforms aimed at creating a democratic world order not controlled by the overlords of globalization and the local comprador elites that serve them.

Also, your article is a piece of disgusting reactionary propaganda by right-wing religious nuts and stinks of fascism, from your link:


Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which contain love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership.

[Per Levy]

Here is a great article written by a survivor of Socialism/Marxism. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/44196)

yeah sure, "survivor of marxism", whatever.


The writer was from Romania. Most people in East Europe approve (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism)the change to capitalism.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1396-2.gif

didnt a link hindsight posted in another thread from the same website showed that people in the former east block dotn like capitalism much and are actually much more sympathetic towards the past?


Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums.

bullshit, lets just assume the former east block was marxist as you put it, there were no "bums" in these states and all people had work. and if you take the word "bum" for lazy people marx was most defenetly not lazy.


His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

you're so full of shit, i mean i didnt know that the iron chancelor bismark was marxist and he did pushed for a wellfarestate, why did he do that? in order to fight socialism you ignorant person. you can look that up if you want to. oh wait you dont, cause then you couldnt post bs about marx.

[capitalism is good]

Honestly, you're clueless. Since you're such a capitalist apologist, go buy one (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,634122,00.html).

Hi Manic Expression,

Der Spiegel is a leftist newspaper and the article had something strange. It quoted a poll that was not named. The poll results contradicts the findings of the PEW poll.

I find PEW more believable.

[Per Levy]

Der Spiegel is a leftist newspaper

hahaha, thats a good one. i live in germany and der spiegel is alot but not left wing. its actual very centrist and pro-capitalist.



and the article had something strange. why?


It quoted a poll that was not named. The poll results contradicts the findings of the PEW poll. oh my whatever shall we do, again i live in germany, even in a part that was the former german democratic republic, no one likes capitalism here. and no these people are not left wing or nostalgic, they just see how fucked up everything is since capitalism has arised.


I find PEW more believable.wich means "i only belive what i want to belive"

[Per Levy]

[/URL] His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.


Welfare state

Germany had a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as the 1840s. In the 1880s his social insurance programs were the first in the world and became the model for other countries and the basis of the modern [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state"]welfare state (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/44196).[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#cite_note-36) Bismarck introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance. He won conservative support by promising to undercut the appeal of Socialists—the Socialists always voted against his proposals, fearing they would reduce the grievances of the industrial workers. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of immigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#cite_note-37)[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#cite_note-38) Politically, he did win over the Centre Party which represented Catholic workers, but Socialists remained hostile.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Welfare_state


I find PEW more believable.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/12/05/confidence-in-democracy-and-capitalism-wanes-in-former-soviet-union/

[Revolutionair]

This thread contains no information: delete the thread.
EZ

[capitalism is good]

The Ceaușescu regime is the probably the furthest deviation from socialist state that you could have possibly chosen, save maybe Cambodia. A criticism of the regime is not in any remote way a criticism of communism.

Yes, I know some of you will say that. There are two groups of people here whenever someone mentions Socialist dictatorships like Ceausescu's Romania or Pol Pot's Cambodia:

1)Those who say that such places do not represent true Socialism.

2)Those that defend them and deny that they were hell holes.

For those in category 1, such unsavory regimes as Cambodia and Romania do not come close to the fantasized Socialist/Communist paradise that these revolutionary leftists have in their minds. They are pursuing revolution for a dream that cannot come true.

The more moderate leftists would point to Sweden and say that is what we want.



And?


Marx was a bum who did not work. In fact, I read somewhere that he exploited labor. He had one worker, a domestic help, whom he did not pay and with whom he had an illegitimate child. This is according to a book I read, "Intellectuals (http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/product-description/0060916575)" by Paul Johnson.

I wrote:



His ideology produced the welfare state


Brospierre replied:



No, it didn't. You haven't shown us anything in Marx's writings to substantiate this shit, you just post rubbish by right-wing radio personalities (How you possibly have the wherewithall to post Michael Savage on a leftist forum is beyond me).


You know what? You are right that Marx did not say anything about the welfare state. He wanted revolution to overthrow the bourgeosie.

However, he had a "star pupil" by the name of Eduard Bernstein who believed that Socialism can be achieved within the framework of democracy bit by bit and there was no need for a violent revolution.

Today's social democratic parties in Europe, the Labour Party of Britain and the Democratic Party of the USA are the intellectual descendents of Bernstein. This is one strain of Socialism. If equality can be reached by taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth through the welfare state, then there is no need for bloody revolution that some members of the Left wants. The goal is the same. So its still Marx's fault.

Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot etc followed Marx and went for violent revolution. I gather that the people here, by calling themselves revolutionary leftists are probably of this second strain of Socialism. Unlike this first strain of Socialism, it is undemocratic in nature and in my books, illegitimate.

The third strain of Socialism is Fascism. I mean fascism in its original meaning. The founder of Fascism was of course Benito Mussolinni who started out in the most radical wing of the Socialist party. Socialists are fond of saying nonsense like, "The workingman has no country". They despise nationalism.

But when WWI broke out, Mussolinni realized that nationalizm was a popular force and did not want to sound unpatriotic. But Socialists are supposed to say nonsense like "The only war we are interested in is the class war."

Italians supported their nation in war. So he left the Socialist party to found the Fascist party. While nationalistic, his party's economics program was Socialist. it was both Socialist and Nationalistic. It called for nationalisation of the means of production for example. So fascism was a leftist ideology. The same thing happened in Germany. The full name of the Nazi party was "German workers National Socialist Party". They were going after voters like you.

This is the third strain of Socialism. So the tree that Marx planted grew three main branches:

1)Democratic Socialism - you end up with countries like Greece. To be fair you also got Sweden which is not so bad.
2)Totalitarian socialism - you end up with countries like Soviet Union, Cuba and N Korea.
3)Fascism - you ended up with Mussolinni and Hitler.

[NewLeft]

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?

Source?

[Revolutionair]

This is the third strain of Socialism. So the tree that Marx planted grew three main branches:

1)Democratic Socialism - you end up with countries like Greece. To be fair you also got Sweden which is not so bad.
2)Totalitarian socialism - you end up with countries like Soviet Union, Cuba and N Korea.
3)Fascism - you ended up with Mussolinni and Hitler.

But you are forgetting branch 4 and 5!
4)Monarchism - obviously Marxist, just look at that state!
5)Wapapupuism - this is Marxism at its peak, it is the ruling ideology in places like bajhfawha and wjwif.

edit:
http://static.nationalgeographic.nl/pictures/genjUserPhotoPicture/original/70/14/16/stokstaartje-28-161470.jpg

[Revolutionair]

Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot etc followed Marx and went for violent revolution. I gather that the people here, by calling themselves revolutionary leftists are probably of this second strain of Socialism. Unlike this first strain of Socialism, it is undemocratic in nature and in my books, illegitimate.

:ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy::ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

[Prometeo liberado]

Here is a great article written by a survivor of Socialism/Marxism. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/44196)

Excerpt:



The writer was from Romania. Most people in East Europe approve (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism)the change to capitalism.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1396-2.gif

Excerpt from first link:



Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?

Is it me or don't you find that the poll above shows a negative trend between 3 and 34 percent? Even if this poll is a correct reflection of views on capitalism it certainly shows an increasing swing away from positive approval. Says to me that many have had their taste of the lie and won't fall for it again.

[Revolutionair]

Is it me or don't you find that the poll above shows a negative trend between 3 and 34 percent? Even if this poll is a correct reflection of views on capitalism it certainly shows an increasing swing away from positive approval.

It's funny when you realize that at first, everyone thought the transition from state-capitalism to market-capitalism was going to be awesome. Since then, people have only become more disillusioned with it. IE people had a favorable view on the market when they didn't experience it yet, now that they have, they are either working in prostitution in the West (this is actually the very real outcome of the transition), or they are at home to answer the poll with a dislike.

[capitalism is good]

you're so full of shit, i mean i didnt know that the iron chancelor bismark was marxist and he did pushed for a wellfarestate, why did he do that? in order to fight socialism you ignorant person. you can look that up if you want to. oh wait you dont, cause then you couldnt post bs about marx.

I know that. Bismarck wanted to steal the thunder from the Sociaists who had they gained more popularity would have asked for even more.

The pressure to redistribute wealth came from and still comes from the Left. That is the bottom line.

As a result, society is divided into two classes - moochers and producers. Marx's old divide of workers and capitalists came from a different era of Nobles who inherited their wealth and power and peasants tilling the fields.

Today the capitalists are very hard workers. Otherwise they can't get rich. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates worked very hard. So these capitalists are workers too. The ones who don't work are those on the welfare rolls who vote for leftists parties.

So Marx is out of date. The divide is not between workers and capitalists (bourgeosie) but between moochers and producers.

[Revolutionair]

The pressure to redistribute wealth came from and still comes from the Left. That is the bottom line.

This is not correct. The pressure to redistribute wealth from the owning classes to working classes has historically come from the left. The pressure to redistribute wealth from the working classes to the owning classes has always come from the right.

Also how come you can acknowledge that Bismark was not actually a socialist, but pressured by popular sentiment to increase welfare for the working class, but you cannot do the same for Hitler? Hitler was in bed with all the cappies, a right-winger through and through.

http://honden.blogo.nl/files/2010/08/dolfijn.jpg

[Per Levy]

As a result, society is divided into two classes - moochers and producers.

aha because there is a wellfarestate there are classes, before that it was classless paradise? what?


Marx's old divide of workers and capitalists came from a different era of Nobles who inherited their wealth and power and peasants tilling the fields.

long before marx wrote anything about communism, philosophy and what not, there was allready a division between labour and capital. there were strikes, there were worker uprisings and workers organized to fight for better wages and working conditions. so marx didnt needed to divide the 2 classe they allready were thanks to the system of capitalism.

btw. the peasents were also a different class then the nobles and they also did rise up against their feudal "masters" several times throughout history.


Today the capitalists are very hard workers.

oh do they loose limbs because of almost no safty regulations at their workplace? the workers work hard overall in the world so some assholes can be filthy rich, its that easy.


Otherwise they can't get rich.

you live in a fairy tale, you live in fairy tale...


Steve Jobs and Bill Gates worked very hard.

and they screwd over a lot of people, especially jobs who was quite an asshole. and yeah, people like jobs and gates got rich thanks to workers who manifactured their products. look to china(not just there) and see how terrible and how hard the workers have it there in apple and microsoft factorys.


So these capitalists are workers too.

no their not, for someone who calls himself "capitalism is good" you have no idea of capitalism. capitalists are capitalists/bourgeoisie(must be shoking for you i know). its a really simpe concept isnt it?


The ones who don't work are those on the welfare rolls who vote for leftists parties.

if you speak about the usa, i know quite a lot of people there and some of them are unemployed they dont get wellfare stuff at all, they live on the streets and when they're lucky maybe can live with a friend for some time. and to my knowledge none of them actually vote.


So Marx is out of date.

lets see, marx was writing and analyzing the economic system of his time, what was it called again? oh yeah capitalism, now with that knowledge, lets see what kind of economic system we have today: also capitalism, wow. thats a big suprise isnt it. marx is hardly out of date, he will be though when world beomes communist.


The divide is not between workers and capitalists (bourgeosie) but between moochers and producers.

the divide is between, exploiters/capitalists and exploited/workers.

now all jokes aside, i know im not funny anyway. you live in a fairy tail, you just belive what you want to see and ignore facts and make shit up so it makes sense for your idiology.

[Per Levy]

So the tree that Marx planted grew three main branches:

3)Fascism - you ended up with Mussolinni and Hitler.

interesting, to my knowledge mussolinni came to power by coup that was planned by him and italys king and ruling class in order to break the communist and socialists, thats what mussolinni and the fascists did. also hitler came to power in an allience with conservatives, and he and his party was completly anti-marxist(communist). hsi regime proved that in crushing the worker movement, breaking their unions and destroying their partys. in both cases the fascists were pretty much called to power by the ruling classes in order to protect them of the workers and their political tendencies. that is basic stuff, open an ordinary history book and you'll find these basics.


again you live in a fairy world where you ake shit up. hats actually kinda sad.

[Revolution starts with U]

1) Did anyone notice that the only mention of the FF's in the article was one quote by John Addams? There was one reference to Adam Smith (but I'm sure capitalists don't really want to go down that road. Adam Smith was no apologist for power... not intently anyway). But he was english, not a founding father.

2) What's so great about the Founding Father's?

[capitalism is good]

interesting, to my knowledge mussolinni came to power by coup that was planned by him and italys king and ruling class in order to break the communist and socialists, thats what mussolinni and the fascists did. also hitler came to power in an allience with conservatives, and he and his party was completly anti-marxist(communist). hsi regime proved that in crushing the worker movement, breaking their unions and destroying their partys. in both cases the fascists were pretty much called to power by the ruling classes in order to protect them of the workers and their political tendencies. that is basic stuff, open an ordinary history book and you'll find these basics.


again you live in a fairy world where you ake shit up. hats actually kinda sad.

I think you need to read the book called "Liberal Fascism: The Secret history of the American Left from Mussolinni to the Politics of Meaning (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841)" by Jonah Goldberg which i enjoyed. It explains the link between Fascism and the what Americans call Liberalism (In realiy Socialism. In America Socialism is a dirty word.)

Hitler got the votes of those who used the sickle while the communists got the vote of those who wielded the hammer. Mussolinni's Fascist imitators in Europe like Hitler were all from the Left. Here is a list:


France - Jacques Doirot (http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Jacques_Doriot)led the Fascist Party Populaire Francais (3). He was a devout Communist before that. He collaborated with Hitler during the occupation. He was also a member of Parliament.

Marcel Deat (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/154409/Marcel-Deat)was elected to Parliament as a Socialist (4) but quarreled with Leon Blum. He then left and helped to form the Parti Socialiste de France (Socialist Party of France) and was an admirer of German National Socialism. Needless to say, he collaborated with the Nazi regime after France fell.

Belgium - There was a smattering of fascist groups that were all pro-worker and anti-capitalist. The most interesting case was Socialist Henry de Man. (http://henri-de-man.co.tv/)He did not claim to be Fascist. (5) However, he flirted with Fascists, exchanging warm letters with Mussolini. Also when Belgium fell to the Nazis, he warmly welcomed them. He called the Belgium defeat as a 'deliverance from capitalist plutocracy'. He called upon his comrades to co-operate with the Nazis to 'realize the sovereignty of Labor'.

Hungary - Gyula Gombos who called himself, 'national Socialist' even before Hitler starting using those words. He later became Prime Minister.

Ferenc Szalasi (http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/arrow/sbio.html)started the Hungarian National Socialist Party. (6)He was able to get support to his cause by adopting views that appealed to the industrial workers and the lower economic classes. When that was banned, he later formed the Arrow Cross Party. He also collaborated with the Nazis.

Norway - Vidkun Quisling tried to establish the Red Guards, for the Labor and Communist parties (7) before becoming a Fascist and formed the National Union Party. He was so notorious in his collaboration with the Nazis that his name entered the English language.

United Kingdom - Sir Oswald Mosley was a former Labour MP and youngest member of the Labour cabinet. He broke from his party to protest its failure to intervene more vigorously in the economy. With some disaffected leftists he founded the more radical New Party which later merged with the Imperial Fascist League to form the Union which changed its name in 1936 to the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists.

Germany - The National Socialist German Workers' Party was started by Anton Drexler. Drexler abandoned the Social Democratic Party which was not nationalistic enough for him and joined the Fatherland Party which he eventually left. He felt that the Fatherland Party lacked concern for Workers. That's when he decided to form the German Workers' Party. A few months later, Hitler joined the party and the name was changed to National Socialist German Workers' Party.


Hitler claimed in a speech on May 1, 1927:


"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's 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."

The Nazi Party campaigned on a recognizably leftist platform. Here is an excerpt from the 1920 Nazi party manifesto:

"10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."

That sounds pretty left wing to me.

[capitalism is good]

1) Did anyone notice that the only mention of the FF's in the article was one quote by John Addams? There was one reference to Adam Smith (but I'm sure capitalists don't really want to go down that road. Adam Smith was no apologist for power... not intently anyway). But he was english, not a founding father.

2) What's so great about the Founding Father's?

They created the greatest nation on earth that did more good than any other nation. The USA defeated Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan in WWII and the Communist Soviet Union in the Cold War.

[citizen of industry]

They created the greatest nation on earth that did more good than any other nation. The USA defeated Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan in WWII and the Communist Soviet Union in the Cold War.

They were mostly slaveowners who created a monstrosity most people in the world despise by raping, killing and pillaging. The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany, the US played a subsidiary role, and all those troops died for such a grand cause, didn't they?

http://www.fabioruini.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/iwo_jima-mcdonalds.jpg

[capitalism is good]

By the way, this study shows that the working poor (http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Vote_for_Hitler_normal_in_economic_context.html?ci d=6952454)voted disproportionately for Hitler, especially the rural poor. The urban poor went more for the communists. :hammersickle: So those who worked with the hammer voted for the Commies and those who worked with the sickle went for the Nazis.
This is fitting for a party that considered itself as Socialist.

Excerpt:



However this study, published in the Journal of Economic History, identifies a set of people – "the working poor" – who stood to benefit most from Nazi policies. It also confirms that they voted proportionally more for the Nazis.



Had the Commies won, Germany would have become something like the Soviet Union - you know the gulags, the starvation, the executions etc. His support did not come from the bourgeosie but from the "working class". (I use inverted commas because I consider the term to be an insult to all those capitalists who work hard.)

[citizen of industry]

Wow, really? Gosh, you mean the proletariat went for the communists? Dude, Maybe you should actually read some Marxists on the agrarian question and peasants before posting stupid things.

Also look at the profit rates for large industries in Germany after Hitler came to power, and how they went up and up. Capitalism on steriods.

[Black_Rose]

Had the Commies won, Germany would have become something like the Soviet Union - you know the gulags, the starvation, the executions etc. His support did not come from the bourgeosie but from the "working class". (I use inverted commas because I consider the term to be an insult to all those capitalists who work hard.)

I don't know why I am bothering responding.

I suppose that socialism would not be as "oppressive" in Germany than in the USSR, since Germany was more developed. Much of the Soviet Union's oppressive nature came from the need to modernize and industrialize from an underdeveloped, feudalistic agricultural society, and the immanent threat of German invasion. (Stalin knew he had to defend himself from a future Nazi invasion, so the Second Five Year plan emphasized military goods over consumer goods.)

Besides, there would be no Holocaust if the communists took over.

[Revolution starts with U]

They created the greatest nation on earth

Did they? Me thinks you don't know what "nation" means. People considered themselves American before the Revolution... before any of the FF's were even born.

that did more good than any other nation.
I mean, a lot of technological progress came out of the states... but htat's true of tons of people. You can only say this because we live in "now." If this were 1775, this claim would be made about England or France.

The USA defeated Nazi Germany,
All by themselves? Man you buy the propaganda hook line and sinker. Don't you remember that other nation involved, the ones that actually stormed Berlin? What was the name of that? Oh right... the USSR


and the Communist Soviet Union in the Cold War

I guess you could say they won the war. But let's not forget who was the first in space.

Look, I'm not here to claim the USSR as some paradise. It's not even socialism. Once again, if you are arguing against the policies of the Soviets, you argue against something I don't support (tho I do try to see through the veil of propaganda at least, and give credit where credit is due).

[RGacky3]

The writer was from Romania. Most people in East Europe approve (http://www.anonym.to/?http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1396/european-opinion-two-decades-after-berlin-wall-fall-communism)the change to capitalism.


I also would approve of going to a system where I could'nt organize a union to one that I could (not knowing anything more about it).

Most people here are in a tradition that was NEVER in favor of state-capitalism


Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?

Do you know anything about Marxism? 99% of what Marx wrote about was Capitalism, he did'nt write much at all about socialism.

His pointing out of internal contradictions in capitalism are turning out exactly the way the economics of marx said they would.

And enough with arguing what is "fair," how about capitalism IS'NT WORKING, its reached its breaking point.

The externalitites are too big, the excess capacity outgrown, the financialization is unstable, the rate of the profit to fall is now reaching beyond basic productive industry, Capitalism IS'NT WORKING, it is basically relying on massiave state intervention to stay afloat, enough with what is "fair," how about lets get rid of this dying system and figure something else out.

Stop criticizing marx without knowing what he said.

[Thirsty Crow]

@Revolutionar: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Mercats are soooo cuuute :w00t:

Did you by any chance watch the documentary called "Mercat Dynasty"? I almost dropped dead from all the mercatoid affection.

EDIT: oh yeah, I'm also a bum. Bum International, bums of the world unite!

[Omsk]

The USA defeated Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan in WWII and the Communist Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Holyyy 'Murica!

Joking aside,this post is the most ignorant post i ever read on RevLeft.I cant believe it,so in your opinion,the USA defeated the Nazi Germany [Yeah soo socialist and communist,the fact that the Nazis destroyed the KPD and killed 15.000 workers in the counter-revolution and later killed millions of communists and socialists in their terror blitz invasions,is just communist lies huh?] on their own,with no help from the Soviet Union.

This is a joke.I wont even reply.I wont waste my time on this,but,just for the sake of the thread,i can only say that the Nazis bastards got 80% of their casualties on the Eastern Front,against the USSR.

What happened to these people?If we are to believe you,only the US fought the Nazis.

So where are those 80% of Nazis who died on the Eastern Front?

[Thirsty Crow]

.I wont waste my time on this
You already did.

[Kotze]

Capitalism does work because of self-interest. One individual’s hard work to achieve self-interest enables Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” (the price system) to push everyone else to greater economic achievement.*cough (http://www.revleft.com/vb/adam-smith-socialisti-t138335/index.html?p=1799239#post1799239)*

@capitalism is good: Given this and this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/leftists-dogmatic-religious-t166574/index.html?p=2343339#post2343339), would you please change your avatar to something else, like someone you actually read (Jonah Goldberg or whatever)?
Health care so dismal and constant shortages due to rationing created a huge black market. Medical care was pathetically inadequate and life had no value. People were killed by malpractice with no accountability since everybody worked for the ruling communist regime for meager wages and the omnipotent government could not be sued.Actually, after the fall of the USSR there was a 5-year drop in life expectancy. Read the article We Lived Better Then (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/) by Stephen Gowans.
Why would French or Greek citizens work hard if the government cannot fire them?Why would capitalists work hard if the government cannot open fire on them? :P
Marxism, named after Karl Marx (1818-1883)I certainly agree with that.

[manic expression]

Hi Manic Expression,

Der Spiegel is a leftist newspaper and the article had something strange. It quoted a poll that was not named. The poll results contradicts the findings of the PEW poll.

I find PEW more believable.
Der Spiegel isn't leftist at all.

The poll is quite valid, it was actually done by the German government (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090626-20207.html) itself:

The result of the survey, conducted by polling company Emnid, disappointed Wolfgang Tiefensee, the government’s representative for the reconstruction of eastern Germany.

There you go, from your capitalist government's mouth no less.

You find PEW believable in that there's less conflict between ethnic groups in Eastern/Central Europe? How do you explain multiple genocides, a sharp rise (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/russia-far-right-nationalists_n_1075687.html) in Neo-Nazi thuggery (http://www.thelocal.de/society/20111128-39073.html), Slovakian laws that ban the speaking of Hungarian (http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2009/09/new_language_ban_in_slovakia_f.html) in public life, race riots in the Baltic states, Azerbaijan detaining people (http://www.rferl.org/content/feature/1800013.html) who vote for Armenian Eurovision performers?

Having been to many of the countries in question and talking to people about the situations there, I can confidently say that PEW is failing to see the forest for the trees. In other words, PEW is full of crap and anyone who's been paying attention for the last 20 years can see that.

[Os Cangaceiros]

oh yeah, I'm also a bum. Bum International, bums of the world unite!

I know, he says bum like it's a bad thing. The fact that Marx was a sometimes drunken vandal and all-around bum just makes me relate to him more.

[Tim Cornelis]

Margaret Thatcher had once said, “The problem with socialism is that, at some point, you run out of other people’s money.” She was referring to the deliberate attempt by a centralized socialist government to confiscate by various means and redistribute wealth they viewed as unfairly earned at the expense of the masses.
Communism abolished classes and the workers were paid for their needs not for the work they performed—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This brings to mind the motto Romanian workers adopted under communism in order to survive: “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.”
There is no such thing as “equal” or “shared” (”communis” means “shared” in Latin) in communism. There is equal misery, equal suffering, equal mistreatment, and equal poverty. We shared constant shortages of food, rationing of necessities, water, energy, and heat.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If wealth is equally distributed from the beginning, there is no need to re-distribute it.

Socialism is about the redistribution of power to empower the workers, which makes redistribution of wealth obsolete.

The principle of "to each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" does not mean people are paid, because it necessities the abolition of money! And it certainly wasn't implemented in Romania, or anywhere except in some rural communities in Spain 1936.

It is a strawman attack followed by an ad hominem attack.

[#FF0000]

i just want to point out that fascism seriously has literally nothing to do with marxism and is opposed to it from it's very foundation (fascism being pretty heavily idealist while Marxism is materialist). honestly, I think that fascism is more closely related to classical liberalism than anything.

Plus, I mean, you're trying to conflate an ideology that believe is absolute social equality to an ideology that views social stratification as natural, good, and desirable. You're simply wildly off-base.

[#FF0000]

This is fitting for a party that considered itself as Socialist.

Except Hitler himself said that they were all about protecting private property and encouraging private initiative, and that Germany had a p. typical Keynesian war economy.

If the Nazis were socialist, so were the democrats and the republicans in the United States.

Please, stop talking about history and political philosophy. You're completely ignorant of both.


Had the Commies won, Germany would have become something like the Soviet Union - you know the gulags, the starvation, the executions etc. His support did not come from the bourgeosie but from the "working class". (I use inverted commas because I consider the term to be an insult to all those capitalists who work hard.)

No, I'm sorry, this is a completely a-historical approach, guy. Germany and Russia were in very different situations and Germany would certainly not have faced the same problems that Russia did.

Again, please stop, you're only embarrassing yourself.

[#FF0000]

That sounds pretty left wing to me.

Sure is, if you ignore literally everything else about the nazis, such as their feverent anti-communism.

[Rafiq]

Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums.

The only "philosophy" (If you can call it that) of Marx was Historical Materialism, so, if you could be so kind and present us with evidence as to how Historical materialism produces "bums", instead of talking out of your ass, like most Bourgeois critics of Marx.

Karl Marx didn't invent communism, by the way. Communism isn't about government extracting money from the Bourgeois classes and distributing it to the masses. It's about abolishing the system in which the bourgeoisie even exists. If anything, people like you are the real "Lazy Bums", wanting the masses to live off your god forsaken charity/soft slavery. The Communists (of Marx's time) seek to empower the working masses, while you wish to enslave them.


He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.


See: Living standards, before and after the Welfare state. Before the welfare state, you had the starving and the well fed, and in between, the half starving. The Welfare state was of absolute necessity to capitalists, for without the welfare state, capitalism cannot survive. I dare you to try and prove otherwise. But none the less, we have learned capitalism cannot survive, anyway, welfare state or none.


Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?


They do, they pay for all of your bloody bailouts for the banks. Even though your statistics are flawed, if we assume they are true, than the very same ultra-rich are the ones who created that kind of tax, for without it, capitalism cannot sustain itself. (See: The Great Depression).

Actually, before the 1980's, when Taxes were much higher for the rich, living standards and the economic growth rate was much more impressive. So the question arises: Should we return to that? No. The Keynesian Welfare-State failed (NOT because people were 'lazy' (People were much more productive and active then) but because of the systematic internal contradictions within ALL forms of capitalism). Just as Neo LIberalism today is failing.

You're a clown, Liberalist scum. Try reading a bit of Marx, before you run your mouth about him, lest you end up providing us with an imagine of you (and rightfully so) that resembles just another fuck-up Libertarian.

[Black_Rose]

Sure is, if you ignore literally everything else about the nazis, such as their feverent anti-communism.

You should regard him as not worth our time, given that he regards Jonah Goldberg and Michael Savage (Weiner) as credible sources.

He's not on my intellectual level; read some Henry CK Liu and Stephen Gowans.

[DinodudeEpic]

capitalism_is_good.....

You're a disgrace to Adam Smith.

[danyboy27]

Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?

yea it create a bunch of slacker, like those peoples.

http://immigration-online.org/uploads/posts/2011-02/1297985112_industrial-workers-of-the-world.jpg

or these slacker
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQm--cjGepvUlL0qUvx0S_wwP028tRi0Rb7fAfknJ26odRIuIkBoWMJ G8QusQ

Its not like these people where working 60 hours a week or anything like that.

[Rafiq]

Bourgeois "intellectuals" (Nowadays, more like champions of the keyboard) never cease to entertain me, in that their main ways of targeting revolutionary structure are always the same: Using Bourgeois presuppositions!

Capitalism_Is_Good lacks the capability of thought outside of the constraint of bourgeois thought. So of course, for him, it makes sense that "Marx produced a bunch of bums" or "Poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough". Of course it makes sense to him that a system's efficiency is defined in contrast as to how fair it is, using models to define what is fair that are discredited, socially constructed, and worthless. But none the less, they don't pose a significant threat to the movement, for a real, class based proletarian movement forms organically, regardless of the Ideas, of the will, of the beliefs of their "Masters" (Or should I say 'Job Creators') and the 'useful' idiots of their masters: Captialism_is_Good.

But oh well. It's important that we don't speak in the language of the enemy. This guy's symbolic representations of reality are alien, unheard of to the real structurally solid users here, or users with a decent grasp of revolutionary understanding (which, for example, make up most of the forum, in regards to a decent revolutionary understanding). He is literally soaked in his own bullshit, and there's nothing we can do to convince him otherwise. 'Our' movement was a direct reflection of the interests of the proletariat, while his beliefs are a collection of Bourgeois thought, with a spice of things he pulled out of his ass. There is no competition. He can post whatever he wants. But reality itself will never correlate, no matter how much he tries to force it to.

[Rafiq]

He's not on my intellectual level;

Don't say things like this. There is no "Intellectual level" in the way you describe. That is Bourgeois thinking. There is the Intellectual thought of the Bourgeoisie, and that of the Proletariat. How we can define different levels of each compared to it's contradiction (A member of the Bourgeoisie's "level" in contrast to a proletarian's intellectual "Level") is all together unknown. Having such an attitude really just dumbs you down. If he is a member of the Bourgeoisie, he is spouting these lies in order to retain his class position and further his class interests. We outnumber him by unlimited hordes, so what he posts is useless, but not because "we're smarter than him ha ha".

[capitalism is good]

Dear everybody,

I enjoy talking with all of you. But I don't have time to respond to everybody, everyday. I can only write one or two posts a day.


Except Hitler himself said that they were all about protecting private property and encouraging private initiative, and that Germany had a p. typical Keynesian war economy.

If the Nazis were socialist, so were the democrats and the republicans in the United States.


As a matter of fact, some of them were and are Fascist. Even Reagan realized this. He once said, "Fascism was the basis of the New Deal." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/New_Deal)

You should read the book, "Three New Deals (http://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/080507452X)". In free market capitalism, government does not interfere with the market. So that means there must be no bail outs and no welfare state either. America at the time of Calvin Coolidge would be the ideal. Hong Kong and Singapore comes close today. According to Heritage Foundation, they are the most capitalistic societies today.

President Obuma came from the Radical Left (Socialism), judging from the radical friends he keeps - like Bill Ayers, Rev Wright. But now he is morphing into a Fascist. He is in cahoots with the bourgeosie. For example, he gave a loan to Solyndra (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/) because its main shareholder, George Kaiser was a major fund-raiser.

When I write of Fascism, I am talking about its original meaning. the man who started Fascism was of course Benito Mussolinni. I know that the word, "Fascism", for most people means ultra nationalism, territorial aggrandisment and even social Darwinism.

But the original meaning of Fascism was state control over the means of production short of the nationalisation that Lenin/Stalin did in the Soviet Union. It was supposed to be the Third Way between free market capitalism and Socialism. Mussolinni justified it in Marxist terms as a necessary step before true Socialism. Here is a short article to explain the link between Fascism and Socialism and a few excerpts:

The Mystery of Fascism (http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm)



Yet however paradoxical it may seem, there is a close ideological relationship between Marxism and Fascism. We may compare this with the relationship between, say, Christianity and Unitarianism. Unitarianism repudiates all the distinctive tenets of Christianity, yet is still clearly an offshoot of Christianity, preserving an affinity with its parental stem.


This writer agrees with me that Fasicism is simply a branch of Socialism. I have earlier given you a list of prominent Fascists. All of them came from the Left. The were former Socialist or Communist Party members. So did Mussolinni. He was an ardent Marxist, a diaper red, whose father named him after Marxist heroes.



As a result, Marxists came to worship "struggle" for its own sake. And since Marxists were frequently embarrassed to talk about problems a communist society might face, dismissing any such discussion as "utopian", it became easy for them to argue that we should focus only on the next step in the struggle, and not be distracted by speculation about the remote future.



This sounds like most of you guys. You want revolution but have no idea how to achieve your Socialist ideals if your revolution succeeds. That is why whenever someone brings up horror stories like the Soviet Union, cuba, Cambodia and N Korea, there are two kinds of responses:

1)These were not true Socialist states. But you are hard pressed to give me an example of a successful Socialist state.

2)The USSR, Cuba or whatever were or are Socialist paradises and deny all bad things said about them. Or they make excuses.



Similarly, Lenin's Bolsheviks took aid from wealthy backers and from the German government. (43) (http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm#n43) In both cases, we see a determined group of revolutionaries using their wits to raise money in pursuit of their goals.


I know Leftists always say that Mussolinni and Hitler were suported by the bourgeosie and so were not leftists. But so was Lenin. All of them were practical policticians who accepted help from whoever they could con.

The other objection that Fascism is simply another branch of the Left is that Mussolinni and Hitler jailed and killed Socialists and Communists. But so did Stalin. How many purges did he make? How many of his fellow Socialists did he shoot? Have you forgotten that he sent an agent to Mexico to put an ice hatchet into the head of Trotsky? Killing fellow leftists is what the Left does. So the argument raised by the Left is feeble.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Dear everybody,

I enjoy talking with all of you. But I don't have time to respond to everybody, everyday. I can only write one or two posts a day.Damn you're lazy - like a commie mooch or something. Why not start your own website and stop mooching off of ours.

[Thirsty Crow]

This writer agrees with me that Fasicism is simply a branch of Socialism. I have earlier given you a list of prominent Fascists. All of them came from the Left. The were former Socialist or Communist Party members. So did Mussolinni. He was an ardent Marxist, a diaper red, whose father named him after Marxist heroes.

I'm curious, who was Benito named after?

[capitalism is good]

I know, he says bum like it's a bad thing. The fact that Marx was a sometimes drunken vandal and all-around bum just makes me relate to him more.

Yes, we all know that he was a bum. Since you relate to him, does it mean you are one too? Thank you for your honesty.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, we all know that he was a bum. Since you relate to him, does it mean you are one too? Thank you for your honesty.
And proud of it, you silly prude :tt2:

[capitalism is good]

I'm curious, who was Benito named after?

Benito Andrea Amilcare Mussolinni was named after Benito Juarez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Ju%C3%A1rez), Andrea Costa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Costa)and Amilcare Cipriano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amilcare_Cipriani)by his father Alessandro Mussolinni, a member of the First International.

Benito Juarez was not a Socialist but was still a hero of the Left for executing Emperor Maximillian of Mexico and confiscating Church lands.

[Per Levy]

This writer agrees with me that Fasicism is simply a branch of Socialism.

of course, i mean its not liek that socialism means class struggle and rule of the proletariat, while fascism means class colaboration and rule of the bourgeoisie that is absoloutly the same, i mean seriously.


President Obuma came from the Radical Left

he didnt, stop insulting the radical left.


judging from the radical friends he keeps like Bill Ayers

"In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association) tactics"


, Rev Wright

have read through is his wiki and found nothing why he should be called left or radical. so again you just bend realitly so it fits you own views even if the facts, again, dont support your views at all.


But the original meaning of Fascism was state control over the means of production

actually the meaning of fascism was class colaboration in order to keep the ruling class in power. some social democratic policies to pacify the workers and to keep the bourgeiosie still the worker movement was broken. that is the third way, a way to keep the ruling class in power.

and i letit stay at that, you dont know what fascism is, the guy who wrote the article you posted doesnt know what fascism is. both of you you just bend facts so it supports your silly views of the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In free market capitalism, government does not interfere with the market.So then this has never existed even though there have been frequent capitalist revolutions in the past.


So that means there must be no bail outs and no welfare state either. And no army and navy?


America at the time of Calvin Coolidge would be the ideal.You mean the guy who supported US involvement in WWI; used federal powers and even the National Guard to end strike actions; vetoes legislation against the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol? Then as President he pushed anti-immigration laws and the power of the federal government to settle labor disputes. Yeah no government there. Which in reality means little corporate regulation while the rest of us get plenty of regulation over if we can enter the country (just don't make the mistake of being Asian), your ability to nogotiate or strike on the job, what we can drink, etc.


Hong Kong and Singapore comes close today. According to Heritage Foundation, they are the most capitalistic societies today. Yes where chewing gum will land you in jail. What freedom!


President Obuma came from the Radical Left (Socialism), judging from the radical friends he keeps - like Bill Ayers, Rev Wright. But now he is morphing into a Fascist. He is in cahoots with the bourgeosie. For example, he gave a loan to Solyndra because its main shareholder, George Kaiser was a major fund-raiser. Cahoots?! He's their main representative! And the bourgoise are not fascist and nither of the 2 capitalist parties are either. They are both capitalist. They might squabble about how best to manage capitalism, but their goals are the same.


1)These were not true Socialist states. But you are hard pressed to give me an example of a successful Socialist state. Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution are short-lived examples, but they existed until they were crushed internally or externally. However, where was this "free-market" capitalism where the government didn't play some part in managing capitalism? It's not like feudalism is still around to keep capitalism down - so if, after several hundred years they still haven't achieved this system that they repeatedly claim they HAVE achieved, then what's the hold up?


The other objection that Fascism is simply another branch of the Left is that Mussolinni and Hitler jailed and killed Socialists and Communists. But so did Stalin. How many purges did he make? How many of his fellow Socialists did he shoot? Have you forgotten that he sent an agent to Mexico to put an ice hatchet into the head of Trotsky? Killing fellow leftists is what the Left does. So the argument raised by the Left is feeble.They didn't just kill them, they saw their role as saving the world FROM socialism and communism... just like you. This argument, so popular with internet right-wingers in the US, is to the study of History what Creationism is to the study of Biology. It's a completely ideological re-write of reality. You know why most people think that fascists were right-wing and diametrically opposed to Marxism and worker's power? Because they fucking said so and acted so! They saw class politics, namely Marxism, as dividing the nation and so they should instead fight Marxism with a "national union". They were usually opposed to the conservatives, but that's because they saw them as cowardly, but so too do contemporary US Tea-Party supporters and they are not left-wing.

Besides, the main thing is that revolutionary socialism, capitalist liberalism or conservatism, and fascism are not merely a series of policies. This is what confuses people who get their information from the capitalist media: oh FDR did this and some Socialists proposed a similar thing at some point - they must be the same! By this logic, a fireman and an apartheid-era South African riot cop are the same since both wield a fire-hose. To get to the truth, you have to see where these politics are coming from, what purpose they serve, and in whose interests do they serve, not what they say or claim on the surface.

North Korea is not socialist or a democracy even though it claims to be both. The fascists have been all over the map historically when it comes to specific policies because their goal is not some set program of reforms or laws but to unite the nation and get rid of independent organizing and politics (which mostly meant crushing worker's movements and unions and socialist groups).

[citizen of industry]

"Capitalism is good," why don't you do yourself a favor and read Mein Kampf. Its a 400 page tirade against Marx, communism, and Jewish people. The first half is a criticism of Marx and communism, he points out the negative effects of capitalism but then lacking a correct economic analysis resorts to blaming everything on the Jews, while also maintaining that communism is a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, communists who werwn't able to escape Fascist Germany were put in concentration camps, though they were divided from the Jews by a fence, received better rations (unless they were Jewish communists, then they were gassed, starved or worked to death). A lot of Hitlers arguments in the book sound remarkably like yours, you'd probably love the book

[Zealot]

Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life. His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

Great Scott you're right! I think I had an epiphany. Karl Marx, the millennium's greatest thinker according to a BBC poll (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/461545.stm), actually did live and die in poverty just to make a moochers philosophy to create a moochers world he would never see before dieing as a pauper! He mooched off of everyone and yet was still poor as hell, this proves capitalism!

Ahhh, nevermind, the epiphany has ended and I am now back to reality only to realize you're so full of shit. You don't even know the first thing about Communism; we don't want to sponge off of the bourgeoisie, we want to completely destroy them as a class. How your logic follows is beyond me.

[Rafiq]

Yes, we all know that he was a bum. Since you relate to him, does it mean you are one too? Thank you for your honesty.

Marx wasn't a lazy bum, he spent his whole life writing shit that even today fucks like you cannot refute.

[Rafiq]

As a matter of fact, some of them were and are Fascist. Even Reagan realized this. He once said, "Fascism was the basis of the New Deal." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/New_Deal)

Keynesian is not socialism. It's not fascism either. Yes, you could look at the similarities between New Deal and the economic system of Nazi Germany. It still doesn't mean shit. Nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, anti-liberalism are still some of the foundational basis of Fascism, something that the United States lacked (The American Bourgeoisie preferred to delude the masses with "Liberty, freedom, cosmopolitinism, etc.".

You're a fucking idiot if you think Nazi Germany was socialist, none the less Europe and War Time America. Social democracy does not equate socialism.


You should read the book, "Three New Deals (http://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/080507452X)". In free market capitalism, government does not interfere with the market.

Yes, like Somalia. Free Market capitalism is a Utopian illusion, it can never exist, other wise we would have it right now. The market requires heavy state intervention in order to keep it functional, lest it spins out of control.



So that means there must be no bail outs and no welfare state either. America at the time of Calvin Coolidge would be the ideal. Hong Kong and Singapore comes close today. According to Heritage Foundation, they are the most capitalistic societies today.


In Hong Kong, the state owns all of the Land. In Singapore, (like China) the state heavily intervenes, and forces businesses to cooperate with it.


President Obuma came from the Radical Left (Socialism), judging from the radical friends he keeps - like Bill Ayers, Rev Wright. But now he is morphing into a Fascist. He is in cahoots with the bourgeosie. For example, he gave a loan to Solyndra (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/) because its main shareholder, George Kaiser was a major fund-raiser.



Are you really that fucking stupid?


When I write of Fascism, I am talking about its original meaning. the man who started Fascism was of course Benito Mussolinni. I know that the word, "Fascism", for most people means ultra nationalism, territorial aggrandisment and even social Darwinism.


As it is. Mussolini used to be a part of the Radical Socialist movement, no lie. But he broke with the movement in favor of "fascism", he became a dog of the bourgeoisie.

Lenin recounts:

"What a waste that we lost Mussolini. He is a first-rate man who would have led our party to power in Italy."

Now why would good old Lenin say that, if Mussolini was a socialist the whole time? Why were Italian socialists, and communists jailed and killed in Fascist Italy?



But the original meaning of Fascism was state control over the means of production short of the nationalisation that Lenin/Stalin did in the Soviet Union.

No, it was precisely the opposite: Fascism was, for Mussolini, a form of corporatism, in which, several corporates would administrate the economy, settling out the differences between Labor and Capital (Businesses). Businesses would then heavily cooperate with the state. The Corporates, of course, would all connect back to the state. However, business, the market, and private property would continue to exist. China today, if you don't know, heavily resembles actual Fascism of Mussolini's italy. But this is just the "economic" aspect, you also have ultra-nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, unapologetic Imperialism (Not in the Leninist definition of Imperialism).

But none the less these are just Ideological aspects that didn't correspond with reality. Fascism was really just a back door for the ruling classes of Italy and Germany to retain class power, as capitalism internationally was failing and destroying itself. Fascism was capitalism in decay, it was the bourgeoisie's desperate last resort. The proletariat were going to overthrow the states of Italy and Germany, so something "New", "opposed" to the current status quo had to be developed by the bourgeoisie of these countries, in order to retain class power.


It was supposed to be the Third Way between free market capitalism and Socialism. Mussolinni justified it in Marxist terms as a necessary step before true Socialism. Here is a short article to explain the link between Fascism and Socialism and a few excerpts:


There is no substantial evidence to back up such a bizzare and obscure assertion. Fascism, for Mussolini, was it. This was supposed to be the final evolutionary stage for the human race, according to him. It would not "Precede" socialism. However, you are correct, in that he said it was a middle way between "Wild West" captialism and Socialism. However, this was merely of absolute necessity, as free market capitalism proved to be an international failure, and continues to do so. The more the taxes were lowered, the less the state intervened, the bigger fuck up things became. Businesses didn't use the money to invest in their capital, they used it to make themselves 10x more wealthier, with the wages of the working people paying the price.





1)These were not true Socialist states. But you are hard pressed to give me an example of a successful Socialist state.


Indeed, people say this. I tend to avoid saying this, as I don't blame the failures on these states "Because dey weren't socialist".


2)The USSR, Cuba or whatever were or are Socialist paradises and deny all bad things said about them. Or they make excuses.


Even the most prominent Stalinist on this site, Ismail, is some times honest about the many fuck ups of the Soviet Union during Stalin's time.

I don't doubt that 20th century Communism was a big disastor and a fuck up. But blaming Socialism is just as bad as blaming "The absence of Socialism". Marx and Engels stressed a successful socialist revolution had to occur in an industrialized country. There was not one socialist country in the 20th century that was already industrialized, so they could not go beyond the constraint of capital, and therefore were destroyed, due to the internal contradictions within capital accumulation. Yes, they were "capitalist" in a certain sense.



I know Leftists always say that Mussolinni and Hitler were suported by the bourgeosie and so were not leftists. But so was Lenin. All of them were practical policticians who accepted help from whoever they could con.


Lenin wasn't supported by the Russian Bourgeoisie. He represented the interests of the Russian proletariat. I mean, you're living in a fucking fantasy land.


The other objection that Fascism is simply another branch of the Left is that Mussolinni and Hitler jailed and killed Socialists and Communists. But so did Stalin.

Yes, but not because they were communists. I consider the Soviet Union a Bourgeois state, by the way, with no moral authority over any other. I see Fascism, Stalinism, and Western capitalism as all forms of the rule of capital.



How many purges did he make? How many of his fellow Socialists did he shoot? Have you forgotten that he sent an agent to Mexico to put an ice hatchet into the head of Trotsky? Killing fellow leftists is what the Left does. So the argument raised by the Left is feeble.


Socialists were killed in Italy and Germany because they were socialists, while the Stalinist excuse was of the exact opposite.

[#FF0000]

As a matter of fact, some of them were and are Fascist. Even Reagan realized this. He once said, "Fascism was the basis of the New Deal." (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/New_Deal)
Neat. He thinks Keynesianism = fascism. He is wrong.


You should read the book, "Three New Deals (http://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/080507452X)". In free market capitalism, government does not interfere with the market. So that means there must be no bail outs and no welfare state either. America at the time of Calvin Coolidge would be the ideal. Hong Kong and Singapore comes close today. According to Heritage Foundation, they are the most capitalistic societies today.
No, I'm sorry, but government intervention is indeed part of capitalism. It always has been.


President Obuma came from the Radical Left (Socialism), judging from the radical friends he keeps - like Bill Ayers, Rev Wright. But now he is morphing into a Fascist. He is in cahoots with the bourgeosie. For example, he gave a loan to Solyndra (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/) because its main shareholder, George Kaiser was a major fund-raiser. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Further, Obama was absolutely not from the Radical Left. He campaigned as a centrist reformer, and that's pretty much what he's been. Not to mention the fact that the radical left has been criticizing him since before he had the nomination.


When I write of Fascism, I am talking about its original meaning. the man who started Fascism was of course Benito Mussolinni. I know that the word, "Fascism", for most people means ultra nationalism, territorial aggrandisment and even social Darwinism.
Because this is a huge part of fascism, yes.


This writer agrees with me that Fasicism is simply a branch of Socialism. I have earlier given you a list of prominent Fascists. All of them came from the Left. The were former Socialist or Communist Party members. So did Mussolinni. He was an ardent Marxist, a diaper red, whose father named him after Marxist heroes.
The writer, like you, is wrong. I'm sorry I just don't know how I can explain this to you any more. Fascism is a rationalist/idealist ideology, whereas Marxism is firmly materialistic. Fascism is nationalist and sometimes racist and chauvinistic, Marxism is internationalist. Marxism is egalitarian, Fascism is vehemently anti-egalitarian.

And let's not forget the obvious one -- Communism stands for a classless and stateless society, while Fascism stands for a rigidly classed, authoritarian nation-state.



1)These were not true Socialist states. But you are hard pressed to give me an example of a successful Socialist state.I don't think anyone ever claimed there ever was a successful socialist state in the first place.


The other objection that Fascism is simply another branch of the Left is that Mussolinni and Hitler jailed and killed Socialists and Communists. But so did Stalin.Stalin didn't run on a platform of ardent anti-communism though, as did Mussolini and Hitler, which is sort of where that falls apart.

[capitalism is good]

yea it create a bunch of slacker, like those peoples.


or these slacker
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQm--cjGepvUlL0qUvx0S_wwP028tRi0Rb7fAfknJ26odRIuIkBoWMJ G8QusQ

Its not like these people where working 60 hours a week or anything like that.

Union Man - Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3OU02biBDxE)is about union protests in Wisconsin against Walker.


3OU02biBDxE

[Os Cangaceiros]

CIG: yes, I am a bum, and proud. BPWW! (bum pride world wide)


You should read the book, "Three New Deals (http://www.amazon.com/Three-New-Deals-Reflections-Roosevelts/dp/080507452X)". In free market capitalism, government does not interfere with the market. So that means there must be no bail outs and no welfare state either. America at the time of Calvin Coolidge would be the ideal. Hong Kong and Singapore comes close today. According to Heritage Foundation, they are the most capitalistic societies today.

That's not true, though. The USA experienced a substantial state hand in the economy from the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt onward, usually in support of business. People like Andrew Carnegie even suggested that Washington fix the price of steel.


President Obuma came from the Radical Left (Socialism), judging from the radical friends he keeps - like Bill Ayers, Rev Wright. But now he is morphing into a Fascist. He is in cahoots with the bourgeosie. For example, he gave a loan to Solyndra (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/17/solyndra-yes-it-was-possible-to-see-this-failure-coming/) because its main shareholder, George Kaiser was a major fund-raiser.

So, he was a socialist, but now he's a fascist because...he props up failing businesses who he may have political connections to? That's what makes someone a fascist? :confused: When JP Morgan begged Washington for assistance during the Panic of 1907, was the USA a fascist state back then? I thought that was the legendary age of free markets.


This writer agrees with me that Fasicism is simply a branch of Socialism. I have earlier given you a list of prominent Fascists. All of them came from the Left. The were former Socialist or Communist Party members. So did Mussolinni. He was an ardent Marxist, a diaper red, whose father named him after Marxist heroes.

A lot of fascists, esp. in Italy, came from socialist traditions, that's true. A lot of them became disillusioned with the left after WW1. And there were left-leaning fascists, "class struggle fascists", both in Italy and elsewhere, who viewed the French Revolution favorably, spoke out vehemently against capitalism, and were fiercely anti-clerical/hated the Church. So ideologically they were similar to the left in those respects, but they replaced the left's emphasis on egalitarianism and worker's internationalism with an emphasis on hardcore nationalism, fetishization of militarism/violence, exhaltation of national culture, etc. which I consider to be a pretty big difference.

But ultimately these elements were mostly marginalized in Italy, where Mussolini didn't really go after the Catholic establishment, and purged in Nazi Germany with the night of the long knives.

[capitalism is good]

No, I'm sorry, but government intervention is indeed part of capitalism. It always has been.


Dear everybody,

I think I will try to address everybody's replies by starting off with this comment from #FF000.

I think we cannot agree what is Capitalism and Socialism.

To me my idea of free market capitalism is that government does not interefere with the economy. People are given the economic freedom to succeed or fail. Socialism means the government interferes the economy to bring about equality of income.

Now, there are no 100% Capitalist or Socialist states in the world. All economies are mixed. I don't think its possible to have a 100% Capitalist or 100% Socialist economhy. So we can only talk about which economies are more capitalistic and which are more Socialistic. Its all a matter of degree.

A major way the government interferes is through its fiscal policies - taxation and spending. Marx had once said, "To each according to his needs. From each according to his ability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)." In a highly Socialist state like say Sweden, taxation is high and transfer payments are also high. You thus have a large welfare state. Government spending and taxation as a percentage of GDP is high in Sweden as compared to a highly capitalist state like Singapore or Hong Kong.

Government can also interefere with the market in other ways. It can pass laws that distort the market for the purpose of equalizing incomes. For example, it can have minimum wage laws. Singapore has no minimum wage law. Or in places like France, it can make it difficult to fire workers. Or it can place restrictions on imports. Any sort of interference in the market makes the society less capitalist and more Socialist.

So it seems to us free marketers that Fascism lies somewhere to the left of us. Mussolinni (and now Obuma) made alliances with big business. We free market capitalists do not like that. It robs the capitalist system of its efficiency. Businessmen would now use their energy to cultivate relations with big government than to come up with a better product or service.

It seems that Obuma's health care plan is going along this route. This is corporatism or Fascism. We don't like big government, big business and big unions. All three interfere with the free market.

In an ideal free market capitalist system, government does not get involved in the economy. Businessmen must compete with one another instead of winning favor with government leaders. Say no to Solyndra. This will drive prices down and quality up. Pleasing the customer is his only priority. The more government intervenes, the more the businessman will make pleasing the politicians the priority instead of the customer.

Of course, non-interference in the market is only an ideal. Ideals, in practice cannot reached in the real world. The same can be said of any other ideals including Socialism.

So it is a matter of degree. To us who believe in free market capitalism, the less government intervenes in the market (through taxation, spending, employment laws, trade laws etc) the more capitalist the country is. The more it intervenes, the more "leftist" it is. So from our point of view, Fascism is a leftist ideology.

I can understand how your minds work. Marxist brainwashing has made you think in terms of economic classes - the working class and the rich capitalist class. Since Mussolinni co-operated with the Big businessmen (your capitalist class) he must be a capitalist. We don't see it like that at all. We see him as interfering in the free market - deciding who does or does not make money and therefore we see a left-winger at work. Whoever interferes with the free market is a leftist.

I am not the only one who thinks this way. This is an excellent but short article by the Ludwig Mises institute explaining why Nazism is Socialism far better than I can:

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian (http://mises.org/daily/1937)

Here are a few excerpts:



The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?




What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive.


You see? The german government interfered in the free market by controlling what to produce, how much, at what price etc. These things should be left to the market.


De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State.

Its the government who decides what is good for you. A capitalist economy is in fact very democratic. You decide what is good for you.

Read the rest of the article. I got to go.

[Zealot]

Fascism, for the last time, is not Socialism. Fucking hell don't you read? Yes, the government interfered in some businesses but private property, class antagonisms, capitalism and everything Socialism wants to abolish was still there. In fact it's been pointed out numerous times the Nazis actually privatized a lot of businesses and some of the big ones weren't interfered with at all. Why the fuck do you think IBM and Coca Cola were still able to do business with the Nazis. It wasn't internationalist either, shouldn't that be a big clue? No, because you just love parroting right-wing BS. You may as well call him a devoted Jew because it's not like he hated them either.

UkMeGOYVqZ4

See that banner at 7:41? It says Der Marxismus muß sterben damit die Nation wieder auferstehe (Marxism must die so that the nation can rise again). I can totally see how he was a Marxist.

Your definition of a leftist is "anyone who interferes with the free market". Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?

[Revolutionair]

The identification of North Korea as a democratic state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises.
When one remembers that the word "dprk" was an abbreviation for "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "democratic" in its name to be but a democracy?

What Mises identified was that dictatorship existed in name only under the Kims and that the actual substance of power resided in the North Korean population. For it was the North Korean population and not the nominal Kims that exercised all of the substantive powers.

I see. :ohmy:

[Thirsty Crow]

Wow, ol' Ludwig was even more deluded than I thought :laugh:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

So,the only socialist states were fascist? :laugh:

I find it amusing when these ultra-conservative Tea Party types believe they can not only lump together fascism,socialism,and liberalism all into the same pool and then claim that anything other than "democratic conservatism" is socialist in nature all while ignoring the facts when it is placed right in front of them.

@Capitalism is Good... just how much Glenn Beck have you watched? Because you are repeating his garbage hook,line and sinker.

[roy]

Dear everybody,

I think I will try to address everybody's replies by starting off with this comment from #FF000.

I think we cannot agree what is Capitalism and Socialism.

To me my idea of free market capitalism is that government does not interefere with the economy. People are given the economic freedom to succeed or fail. Socialism means the government interferes the economy to bring about equality of income.

No. You can't just make up definitions to satisfy your dogma. You don't get to disagree on the definition of socialism: you are simply incorrect.

By the way, where in the world does the government not interfere in the economy? Isn't that what the government does to make sure shit doesn't go so horribly awry that the system implodes?

[Tim Cornelis]

Its the government who decides what is good for you. A capitalist economy is in fact very democratic. You decide what is good for you.

Except if you lack the money--which the majority of the population lacks. Then you are, by necessity, compelled to sell your labour power and become subordinate to an employer.

[Veovis]

Dear everybody,

I think I will try to address everybody's replies by starting off with this comment from #FF000.

I think we cannot agree what is Capitalism and Socialism.

To me my idea of free market capitalism is that government does not interefere with the economy. People are given the economic freedom to succeed or fail. Socialism means the government interferes the economy to bring about equality of income.

No, you are quite wrong. Where did you pull this definition? Some right-wing polemic?

Never mind, that was a stupid question.

Socialism is the collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production by the majority working class.

Capitalism is the private ownership and unaccountable control of the means of production by a minority employing class (the bourgeoisie).

The Nazis and other assorted fascists were not socialist because the bourgeoisie controlled the means of production in those states. Fascism does not descend from socialism; it is a reaction to it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Round and round we go. Will he be shocked to find social anarchism? Everybody knows! :thumbup:
The laptop screens all glisten, hoping the Piper will listen. But he can't hear them over all that whistling.

Just groove with the tune and follow man. We all know how well that story ended... :cool:

[Night Ripper]

Except if you lack the money--which the majority of the population lacks. Then you are, by necessity, compelled to sell your labour power and become subordinate to an employer.

I "sell my labor power" and I enjoy it. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If you don't like your boss, work for yourself.

[Revolution starts with U]

You'd enjoy it even more if you were given meaningful say over your work environment, direction, and pay-scale... to put it bluntly, if you were treated as a dignified human, rather than some mechanized commodity, to be bought and sold and told what to do.

[Night Ripper]

You'd enjoy it even more if you were given meaningful say over your work environment, direction, and pay-scale... to put it bluntly, if you were treated as a dignified human, rather than some mechanized commodity, to be bought and sold and told what to do.

Let me know when we can make that happen without guns and bayonets...

[Revolution starts with U]

I'll tell you when bosses stop calling on the state to use them against workers when they try to unionize.

[Night Ripper]

I'll tell you when bosses stop calling on the state to use them against workers when they try to unionize.

I'm against that too. I'm sure you would allow people to cross the picket lines too if they don't care about your union?

[Revolutionair]

I'm against that too. I'm sure you would allow people to cross the picket lines too if they don't care about your union?

You should change your description to "rugged denialist". You seem completely alienated from the real world.

[Night Ripper]

You should change your description to "rugged denialist". You seem completely alienated from the real world.

Do you just want to talk about me personally or did you have anything of an intellectual nature to share?

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm against that too. I'm sure you would allow people to cross the picket lines too if they don't care about your union?

I don't run the union. If they let the scabs cross, lose their jobs, and are kicked out of their homes under threat of a cop's gun, will you support them when they refuse to leave?

BTW, you're not against that. Whether it's "the state" or a "private defense agency" really makes no difference under threat of losing your entire livelihood.

[Night Ripper]

will you support them when they refuse to leave?

If they are the owners of their property they have the right to defend it. If the bank owns it, get out.

[Revolution starts with U]

I guess that just depends on if you're willing to go through the mental gymnastics needed to justify the existence of private property. You are. I'm not. I guess I"m just lazy that way (sort of how people who didn't study how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle were lazy).

[Night Ripper]

I guess that just depends on if you're willing to go through the mental gymnastics needed to justify the existence of private property. You are. I'm not. I guess I"m just lazy that way (sort of how people who didn't study how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle were lazy).

I guess that just depends on if you're willing to go through the mental gymnastics needed to justify the abolition of private property. You are. I'm not. I guess I"m just lazy that way (sort of how people who didn't study how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle were lazy).

[Tim Cornelis]

I "sell my labor power" and I enjoy it. If you don't like your job, find a new one. If you don't like your boss, work for yourself.

Sure. In medieval Europe the servants could freely choose to whom they'd submit, but this does not make them free, they were still serfs. Some dumb ass serf would probably indeed find it enjoyable to have no say over his own life, but not all.

What some are proposing is that "if you do not like a dictator, go live under another dictator".

The answer to oppression is not seek the most favourable oppression, it's the end of oppression.

Also, see how much you would like selling your labour power if there were not imposed restrictions such as minimum wages; safety regulation; etc. You would be working 14-hour per day for a barely substance wage.

What you are proposing is that I "work for myself" except you need to have the money to work for yourself which is rather the point: I, and the vast majority of world, lack that financial ability!

[Revolutionair]

If they are the owners of their property they have the right to defend it. If the bank owns it, get out.

But what if they don't want to submit to power?

You are the one advocating violence because property IS violence.

[Klaatu]

There is equal misery, equal suffering, equal mistreatment, and equal poverty. We shared constant
shortages of food, rationing of necessities, water, energy, and heat.

Of course, under Capitalism, we all have equal happiness, equal wealth, equal rights, equal class status
We all have abundant, (but unnecessarily expensive) food and fuel, and we enjoy this utopian atmosphere!



Marx cherished his philosophical ideas more than his responsibilities to his family because he
relied on wealthy patrons such as Friedrich Engels, communist sponsors, and inheritances to
care for his family. He died a pauper.

Vincent van Gogh was supported by his brother Theo. And like Van Gogh, Marx has left us with some great works



Marx was a bum and his philosopy produces bums. He mooched from others all his life.

This was also true of Jesus Christ. He as a bum. (really!) Why don't you lambaste him too for not being rich.
By the way, Gandhi and Mother Teresa died paupers too... and they "lived off of others." I guess if one dies
a pauper, one is just a loser. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison died penniless too. Hence they were losers.



His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.

The so-called "welfare state" was designed and created by Capitalists, in order to hide and draw attention
away from their vast sums of wealth. And that scheme is now failing because of the unjustness of the runaway
greed of the overlord class is becoming increasingly visible to "99%" (and we won't get fooled again)



Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay
their fair share in taxes?

Guess what! The working class pays plenty of tax: payroll tax, city and state income tax, plus sales tax makes
up 18% rate and other taxes, such as fuel tax, property tax, and drivers' fees put this into the 20s.
Federal income tax is supposed to be paid by the higher class (to finance their imperialistic wars!)

And you are ignorant of the fact that most government outlays go to corporate welfare such as subsidies
such as farm price supports, oil drilling, corporate jet tax write-offs... these and other tax favorites cost the
honest taxpayer billions. How about huge corporations like WalMart paying their workers so little that they must
rely on food stamps and Medicaid (these are hidden govt subsidies to one of the wealthiest familys in the world)

If you want to promote capitalism, you had better start to clean it up, or else the coming revolution will destroy it..
consider this a warning from my planet ;)

[Rafiq]

capitalism_is_good you fucking coward, respond to my post, or are you going to be like Night Ripper and ignore me. Do my posts really hurt you that badly?

[Revolution starts with U]

No mental gymnastics needed. It goes like this:

1) There is no metaphysical justification for private property. It is a social construct, and a relatively recent one at that. In fact, not only is private property unjustified, but it is outright theft, as it is the use of violence to "protect" previously common goods and land.

2) Things would be far more fair and better managed under a democratic system; this is evidentially seen in world history over the successes of democracies over dictatorships in politics.

[ColonelCossack]

The USA defeated Nazi Germany

Well considering the fact that around 80% of the German army was defeated in the Soviet Union in WW2, I don't see how that can be possible.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Let me know when we can make that happen without guns and bayonets...

Let me know when you can stop me from behaving like a communist without guns and bayonets... cuts both ways, right? Forcing people to be a live in a communist society - well y'all forcing people to live in a capialist one. though you probably won't get what i mean here.

[Ostrinski]

I think we cannot agree what is Capitalism and Socialism.My apologies, but I don't think we can (or at least do at the present moment).


To me my idea of free market capitalism is that government does not interefere with the economy. People are given the economic freedom to succeed or fail. Socialism means the government interferes the economy to bring about equality of income. And here is the problem. You subscribe to a popular misconception of what constitutes a capitalist and a socialist mode of production. A capitalist mode of production entails private ownership of the means of production, bourgeois class rule, and the employment of wage labor on the means of production to accumulate capital. A socialist mode of production entails public ownership of the means of production, democratic planning of the economy, proletarian class rule, and the abolition of all existing property and value relations. This is the premise that we leftists accept. We aren't fighting for taxation or equality of income, because we recognize that this is impossible where capital can still be accumulated. This would also imply that the capitalist mode of production is still in existence, and we seek its destruction. Your definition of laissez-faire capitalism is partly true, but it lacks an in-depth material analysis. What I mean is that it lost its analogue long ago, when irreconcilable class antagonisms necessitated the bourgeois state to make concessions so that the bourgeoisie could retain their class power. In other words, the bourgeoisie responded to the shifting material conditions in such a pragmatic way that reconciled (for the time being) class antagonisms and thus prolonging their class rule.

This, however, we view as futile, because we recognize that capitalism is unsustainable. But that is for another discussion.


Now, there are no 100% Capitalist or Socialist states in the world. All economies are mixed. I don't think its possible to have a 100% Capitalist or 100% Socialist economhy. So we can only talk about which economies are more capitalistic and which are more Socialistic. Its all a matter of degree.Under the definitions which I laid out above, there are no socialist states in the world at this moment. The bourgeoisie holds class power in every industrial and industrializing country, though the stability of its rule varies from region to region. An economy is either capitalist or socialist. On the contrary to your understanding, we can only talk about economies with the capitalist mode of production as their foundation (all of them) and economies with the socialist mode of production (none of them). There is a wide variety of fiscal policies, methods of taxation, and state services. This is primarily because economies with different fiscal policies have different material conditions and social realities, and the relations between classes are of a different character and have different content. Not because of the ideology of some politician or other.


A major way the government interferes is through its fiscal policies - taxation and spending. Marx had once said, "To each according to his needs. From each according to his ability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need)." In a highly Socialist state like say Sweden, taxation is high and transfer payments are also high. You thus have a large welfare state. Government spending and taxation as a percentage of GDP is high in Sweden as compared to a highly capitalist state like Singapore or Hong Kong.Indeed, the Scandinavian states have large state sectors in their economies, because the conditions there require it. I really have no idea where the Marx quote you identified to plays into your point, though.


Government can also interefere with the market in other ways. It can pass laws that distort the market for the purpose of equalizing incomes. For example, it can have minimum wage laws. Singapore has no minimum wage law. Or in places like France, it can make it difficult to fire workers. Or it can place restrictions on imports. Any sort of interference in the market makes the society less capitalist and more Socialist.No. See above.


So it seems to us free marketers that Fascism lies somewhere to the left of us. Mussolinni (and now Obuma) made alliances with big business. We free market capitalists do not like that. It robs the capitalist system of its efficiency. Businessmen would now use their energy to cultivate relations with big government than to come up with a better product or service.Mussolini and Obama did make alliances with big business, but do you think that they just did that because they woke up one day and felt like it? Mussolini and Obama are both representatives of the state apparatus, and their only purpose is serve the class that their respective state is an extension of. I know you don't like it, but it's not like there's anything you can do about it. The state is and always has been the means by which a class holds their power. This is nothing new. I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean when you say that this arrangement robs the capitalist system of efficiency, but I know I disagree with you. The bourgeoisie's aim isn't to be "efficient," its aim is to perpetuate and enrich its own existence.


It seems that Obuma's health care plan is going along this route. This is corporatism or Fascism. We don't like big government, big business and big unions. All three interfere with the free market.It's not fascism, it's a typical Keynesian solution (which we socialists don't support). I know you don't like big government, big business, or big unions, but why can't you see that they develop naturally, out of the irreconcilable contradictions within the capitalist mode of production? Nothing can "interfere" with the free market, as the free market (in the sense that it actually describes a concrete set of conditions and relations) has been dead for a while now. The free market cannot survive on its own because the bourgeoisie cannot hold class power without their state.


In an ideal free market capitalist system, government does not get involved in the economy. Businessmen must compete with one another instead of winning favor with government leaders. Say no to Solyndra. This will drive prices down and quality up. Pleasing the customer is his only priority. The more government intervenes, the more the businessman will make pleasing the politicians the priority instead of the customer.And why the fuck does a businessmen or a statesman give a fuck about what you want? They have no interest in doing so, and wealth will continue to centralize by whatever means the bourgeoisie sees fit. They could give a rat's ass about your libertarian utopia, in fact they probably laugh at it.


Of course, non-interference in the market is only an ideal. Ideals, in practice cannot reached in the real world. The same can be said of any other ideals including Socialism.And that's the difference between libertarians and scientific socialists. You think in terms of ideals, and have an idealistic understanding of history. You neglect an in-depth material analysis as irrelevant, you believe that society and material reality can be molded by sheer human will, that we can create or re-create the world in our own image. On the contrary, we on this board are materialists (with a couple deviants). We understand that reality exists outside of our consciousness. We understand that it is interests that are the vehicle of human history, not ideals. We never take anything out of context, constantly analyzing all phenomena in relation to all other phenomena. And perhaps most importantly, while you all uphold ideology as the be all end all golden crop of the mind, we see each ideology as simply a response to the material conditions which give way to its manifestation. We use ideology simply as a machine to help us understand the structure and interrelations of institutions, social relations, geographical characteristics, and political climate, and to address the contradictions within these arrangements.


I can understand how your minds work. Marxist brainwashing has made you think in terms of economic classes - the working class and the rich capitalist class. Since Mussolinni co-operated with the Big businessmen (your capitalist class) he must be a capitalist. We don't see it like that at all. We see him as interfering in the free market - deciding who does or does not make money and therefore we see a left-winger at work. Whoever interferes with the free market is a leftist.Listen. You can honestly think that we're the fallout of some brainwashing experiment by liberals who want to control the world with all the bells and whistles, but on a non-political, pragmatic note, I would advise you to keep this view to yourself, lest you be seen as an insane, ignorant, callous, and arrogant steaming pile of shit.


I am not the only one who thinks this way. This is an excellent but short article by the Ludwig Mises institute explaining why Nazism is Socialism far better than I can:

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian (http://mises.org/daily/1937)

Here are a few excerpts:





You see? The german government interfered in the free market by controlling what to produce, how much, at what price etc. These things should be left to the market.



Its the government who decides what is good for you. A capitalist economy is in fact very democratic. You decide what is good for you.

Read the rest of the article. I got to go.Yeah, no one's gonna read this shit. I'm pretty sure I completely refuted all its points in this post without even reading it.

Man I need a smoke.

[Prometeo liberado]

This is not correct. The pressure to redistribute wealth from the owning classes to working classes has historically come from the left. The pressure to redistribute wealth from the working classes to the owning classes has always come from the right.

Also how come you can acknowledge that Bismark was not actually a socialist, but pressured by popular sentiment to increase welfare for the working class, but you cannot do the same for Hitler? Hitler was in bed with all the cappies, a right-winger through and through.

http://honden.blogo.nl/files/2010/08/dolfijn.jpg
You had me at tuna salad sandwich:thumbup1:

[Revolution starts with U]

It's funny that he comes here, spouts off some shit we've heard 1000 times, a nearly word for word rewrite of a couple articles he read on Mises.org... and then accuses US of being brainwashed by Marx. :lol:

Hey Capitalism is Good... you do know nearly all historians and anthropologists recognize "class systems" as one of the foundational functions of the state... right? Are you really denying that there are ruling and ruled classes in the world, and have been since at least 4000 bce?

[Night Ripper]

Let me know when you can stop me from behaving like a communist without guns and bayonets... cuts both ways, right? Forcing people to be a live in a communist society - well y'all forcing people to live in a capialist one. though you probably won't get what i mean here.


I'm not forcing you to do anything except keep your hands off me and my stuff.

[Veovis]

I'm not forcing you to do anything except keep your hands off me and my stuff.

Why is it your stuff? Furthermore, why should it be your stuff? What if someone needs it more than you do?

You can't have private property without the very coercion that people like you are supposedly against.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm forcing you to keep your hands off me and stuff I claim is mine.

Fixed that :thumbup1:

[citizen of industry]

I'm not forcing you to do anything except keep your hands off me and my stuff.

Yes, but your "stuff" is personal property, not private property. The difference being private property is land and means of production that is used to perpetuate wage slavery, and personal property is your house, posessions, etc. Communists don't want to take your stuff. In fact, we want you to have access to more stuff that you can't afford under capitalism. But we don't want you to personally own a production facility that allows you to make personal profit off the labor of others, and denies them the right to better themselves in society because the wages you pay them only allow them to work for you every day and nothing more, while you get fat off of their labor for doing nothing except holding a property title.

If you are of the latter variety, you should have your "stuff" forcibly seized because it doesn't belong to you and are a leech off of other's labors. If your "stuff" is the former variety you can enjoy a hell of a lot more of it because you will have access to society's products over and above the minimum required to reproduce your labor, as you have in capitalism, while someone else takes the products of your labor. Capitalists take the "stuff" I produce everyday. Instead of paying an equivalent for it, they pay me only enough to stay alive and come back every day.

[capitalism is good]

Fascism, for the last time, is not Socialism. Fucking hell don't you read? Yes, the government interfered in some businesses but private property, class antagonisms, capitalism and everything Socialism wants to abolish was still there. In fact it's been pointed out numerous times the Nazis actually privatized a lot of businesses and some of the big ones weren't interfered with at all. Why the fuck do you think IBM and Coca Cola were still able to do business with the Nazis. It wasn't internationalist either, shouldn't that be a big clue? No, because you just love parroting right-wing BS. You may as well call him a devoted Jew because it's not like he hated them either.

UkMeGOYVqZ4

See that banner at 7:41? It says Der Marxismus muß sterben damit die Nation wieder auferstehe (Marxism must die so that the nation can rise again). I can totally see how he was a Marxist.

Your definition of a leftist is "anyone who interferes with the free market". Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?

Fascism was a branch or an offshoot of Socialism. Some writers called Fascism a Socialist heresy. So this reminds me of Protestants and Catholics in the 30 years war who regarded each other as heretical but still shared much common ground. I have given you a list of people that founded Fascists parties in my earlier post. They, like Mussolinni, were formerly from Socialist or Communist Parties.

The people who found Fascist parties attractive were also the same kind of people that found Socialist parties attractive. In other words, they were people like you.

[capitalism is good]

3OU02biBDxE


Union Man - Song about the union protestors against Gov Walker's attempt to balance the budget.

By the way, Walker's reforms are working (http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html)in Wisconsin.

[Revolution starts with U]

So what is the point of this whole "guilt by association" tirade? The policies of fascists and communists are and were vastly different. Do you want to refute what we actually support, or are you just going to keep saying "you're friends with a fascist, murderer..." ???

[Jimmie Higgins]

Do you just want to talk about me personally or did you have anything of an intellectual nature to share?Are you saying that there's nothing of an intellectual nature when it comes to the subject you personally?

Waka-waka. :D Couldn't resist the open set-up.

[capitalism is good]

I see. :ohmy:

I did not write that. But I guess you were trying to make the point that the Democratic Republic of North Korea is not really Democratic.

That is why we all get tied up in knots. Democracy, Socialism and Capitalism and gay are words that mean different things to different people. When I was a kid, the word gay meant to be merry. Now its different.

The North Koreans have defined "democracy" in the old fashion leftist way. Marx was not the first communist. Gracchus Babeuf (http://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/conspiracy-equals/index.htm)was earlier than him.

To Babeuf, democracy means not just equality of rights but also equality of wealth. The reasoning is that since the poor greatly outnumbered the rich in France at that time, a democracy will instantly produce a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

Even today, I have come across some people here in this forum who talk about a "democratic economy" which to them meant equality of wealth. So the reasoning goes that a true democracy will bring about Socialism.

Also Marx had said, "Democracy is the Road to Socialism."

Thus the one man one vote system is merely a mechanism to bring about true equality of wealth. The North Koreans claim that they have achieved this equality (a lie of course) and so they are a democracy. That is how the leftist logic works.

Here is an excerpt from the link I gave above:



The conspiracy of equality organised by Babeuf and his followers aimed at provoking an armed uprising of the plebeian masses against the bourgeois regime of the Directory and establishing a revolutionary dictatorship as a transitional stage to “pure democracy” and “egalitarian communism.” The conspiracy was disclosed in May 1796. At the end of May 1797 its leaders were executed.


You see? Democracy is equated with equalitarian communism. To bring about this "pure democracy" they needed a "revolutionary dictatorship"!

What twisted logic. Babeuf and his followers wanted a dictatorship to bring about a democracy. This is the left for you.

[Per Levy]

So what is the point of this whole "guilt by association" tirade? The policies of fascists and communists are and were vastly different. Do you want to refute what we actually support, or are you just going to keep saying "you're friends with a fascist, murderer..." ???

ah come on, capie is good has nothing discussion worthy to add, if he did he would actually discuss things like quoting some of the many good posts and awnsering to them. but it is much easier to just spout you idiology around and show everone that he is not interested in discussion at all. i mean why would he try to change topics and start praising the walker guy.

[Klaatu]

Fascism was a branch or an offshoot of Socialism. Some writers called Fascism a Socialist heresy. So this reminds me of Protestants and Catholics in the 30 years war who regarded each other as heretical but still shared much common ground. I have given you a list of people that founded Fascists parties in my earlier post. They, like Mussolinni, were formerly from Socialist or Communist Parties.

The people who found Fascist parties attractive were also the same kind of people that found Socialist parties attractive. In other words, they were people like you.

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

Fascism is closer to Capitalism, if anything. Consider Nazi Germany, where Hitler welcomed Capitalists to manufacture his war machine, while shunning Communists and Socialists. In fact he murdered them.

[Revolutionair]

YES BUT HITLER LIKED THE PEOPLE HE KILLED, AND THE PEOPLE HE MADE RICH? HE HATED THEM CAUSE HE WAS EVIL SOCIALIST COMMUNIST MARXIST TROTSKYIST STALINIST. HITLER READ THEM ALL, EVEN PROUDHON BAKUNIN KROPOTKIN ROCKER! HOXHA MAO (HITLER HAD THE GIFT OF FORESIGHT I BELIEVE). COUNCIL/LEFT COMMUNISTS? HITLER READ ALL THEIR BOOKS, PANNEKOEK DELEON LUXEMBURG LIEBKNECHT!

The only reasons why Hitler succeeded (OH WAIT I AM SUPPOSED TO SAVE MY NAZISM FOR PRIVATE MEETINGS WITH THE KOCH BROTHERS) was because of heaps of money that he received from large industrialists and his knowledge of communism.

[Ismail]

I like the "bums" comment in the first post. Engels actually fought with guns and sabers in a 1849 uprising in Elberfeld. One of the earliest Communists, Joseph Weydemeyer, was a Prussian officer turned colonel in the Union Army during the American Civil War. Apparently the Russian Revolution and the subsequent civil war were initiated by "bums," as was the German revolution, the International Brigades and the PCE in the Spanish Civil War, communist partisan struggles during World War II, the CCP in its struggle against Japanese occupation and later the Guomindang, etc.

But hey, apparently Romania was a bad place to live for reasons that were totally divorced from the fact that, say, in the 1980's Ceaușescu decided to have the entire country give its all towards paying off debts it owed to the IMF, which produced atrocious living standards.

That article is basically just a collection of arguments about the character of Marx, the "failures" of socialism, etc. as have been around since the 90's. Here's an example:

Margaret Thatcher had once said, “The problem with socialism is that, at some point, you run out of other people’s money.” She was referring to the deliberate attempt by a centralized socialist government to confiscate by various means and redistribute wealth they viewed as unfairly earned at the expense of the masses.This quote would be true if someone had no grasp whatsoever of economics and thought that socialism doesn't place a strong emphasis on the development of industry and on modernizing agriculture and transport, things which, you know, tend to bring revenue. Every Eastern Bloc country, Romania included, made strides in industrial development in the 1940's-70's.

Then it mentions Jamestown, which wasn't "socialist" in the Marxian sense. Those communes and closed communities are better known as "utopian socialism," early pre-scientific experiments which failed either when their backwards agriculture competed with modern industrial society led by capitalism, or because they could not possibly fulfil what Marx termed "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Marx called for seizing control of the means of production and of entire countries falling to the working-class, not "let's set aside a bunch of farmland in the middle of capitalism and pretend we can coexist with the capitalist system."

The entire article is just a puerile conservative "eff you commies" article with no substance behind it. That's why it cites Michael Savage.

Also no, fascism did not "derive" from socialism. Fascism holds the state as some sort of mystical "highest stage" in mankind's existence or whatever. Marxists recognize the state as an organ of class rule. Fascists claim that the state is above classes. Marxists promote the abolition of class society, fascists promote "transcending" class distinctions to serve the state. Mussolini was originally a "socialist" in the social-democratic sense, promoting class collaboration and defending Italy's colonial war in Libya and inter-imperialist warfare in World War I. Actual socialists were against the war.

[Tim Cornelis]

Fascism was a branch or an offshoot of Socialism. Some writers called Fascism a Socialist heresy. So this reminds me of Protestants and Catholics in the 30 years war who regarded each other as heretical but still shared much common ground.

Yet Benito Mussolini (or his ghost writer) said in the Doctrine of Fascism:


Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon



I have given you a list of people that founded Fascists parties in my earlier post. They, like Mussolinni, were formerly from Socialist or Communist Parties.

The people who found Fascist parties attractive were also the same kind of people that found Socialist parties attractive. In other words, they were people like you.

Which is a sort of guilty by association fallacy.

You know, loads of Maoists have turned right-wing capitalists--like you are a right-wing capitalist. Therefore you are actually responsible for the Maoist slaughter of millions!

... Or maybe such reasoning does not work.

----------------
And the idea postulated here that National-Socialism is a form of socialism is ridiculous.

Hitler was not opposed to private property; while socialism is.

Hitler did some historical revisionism and theoretical gymnastics to get around this. In an interview he said:


"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists

Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property ... . Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists.

You can read the entire interview with Hitler here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

Mind you, back then "liberalism" was used exclusively for classical liberalism, or what is now called right-wing libertarianism.

So according to Hitler he was a socialist because he believed in private property; but Marxism was not socialism, because it did not believe in private property.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yet Benito Mussolini (or his ghost writer) said in the Doctrine of Fascism:

Which is a sort of guilty by association fallacy.

You know, loads of Maoists have turned right-wing capitalists--like you are a right-wing capitalist. Therefore you are actually responsible for the Maoist slaughter of millions!

... Or maybe such reasoning does not work.

----------------
And the idea postulated here that National-Socialism is a form of socialism is ridiculous.

Hitler was not opposed to private property; while socialism is.

Hitler did some historical revisionism and theoretical gymnastics to get around this. In an interview he said:

You can read the entire interview with Hitler here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1

Mind you, back then "liberalism" was used exclusively for classical liberalism, or what is now called right-wing libertarianism.

So according to Hitler he was a socialist because he believed in private property; but Marxism was not socialism, because it did not believe in private property.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That post should end the discussion. Further insistence that fascism is related to revolutionary socialism is just willful ignorance.

The funny thing is that nobody seriously considered NAZIs to be left-wing, let alone socialist, until the idea became increasingly popular in right-wing niche groups in the very recent past. Since the 1990s it has become more mainstream (probably because saying this while the population in Russia still considered the USSR to be socialism and the USSR still had some credibility among some people would have upset some of the survivors of WWII in the way that holocaust revisionists tend to piss off survivors).

The traditional right-wing attitude towards fascism was usually just to downplay the politics of it - it was just because of "power-hungry" people and demagogues, not the politics of national strength and suppression of working class movements, particularly revolutionary ones.

This idea is simply right-wing dogma: an attempt to fit history into the square hole of some strains of US right-wing ideology. They have a conception that capitalism=liberty and freedom, socialism=autocratic strong-man rule. The shitty cold-war politics of so-called socialist states helped bolster this idea and is the gain of truth in their rewriting of reality. But this conception doesn't fit reality at all and so they have to do a lot of intellectual and historical slight of hand to get the pieces to all fit. Pinochet wasn't actually capitalist, or if he was, his state had nothing to do with capitalism; fascism wasn't an anti-red and anti-working class movement, it was actually just some kind of socialism.

I reject the USSR as socialism by any definition, but the ideology of Stalin's supporters is an actual off-shoot of socialism... just an off the rails mutation created by the defeat of worker's power in my view. Fascism, however, is only connected to revolutionary socialism in that it was an ideology born and raised in reaction to the working class ferment of the early 20th century.

The fascists in Italy grew in strength and eventually took power why? Because they organized a reaction against the "2 red years" in which workers took over factories and radical politics threatened the Italian state! Where did the Nazi movement come from? It grew out of the Freikorps who were German paramilitaries who attacked revolutionaries and striking workers during the revolutionary years in Germany following the Russian Revolution. Their members were the seeds of the NAZIs and many of the leaders of that party:



As the following list shows, the Freikorps were largely fanatically right wing fighters, part of Europe wide conflict like the White Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Guard) in Finland, and subsequently formed the core of the Nazi establishment.
Notable Freikorps members



Josef Adams, SS Officer
Ludolf von Alvensleben (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludolf_von_Alvensleben) SS General
Kurt Benson, SS Oberführer'
Rudolph Berthold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Berthold), World War I ace
Gottlob Berger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Berger),SS General
Karl-Heinz Bertling, SS Oberführer
Wilhelm Bittrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Bittrich) SS General
Martin Bormann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bormann), NSDAP Politician/SS General
Wilhelm Canaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris), Admiral
Friedrich Christiansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Christiansen) Luftwaffe General
Kurt Daluege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Daluege), SS General
Karl Diebitsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Diebitsch) SS Oberführer
Josef Dietrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Dietrich) SS General
Oskar Dirlewanger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger), SS Colonel
Freiherr Karl von Eberstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Eberstein) SS General
Johannes Engel, SS General
Hermann Ehrhardt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Ehrhardt)
Hans Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank) SA General/Governor-General of Poland
Fritz Freitag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Freitag), SS General
Karl Gebhardt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Gebhardt), SS General
Richard Glücks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gl%C3%BCcks), SS General
Arthur Greiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Greiser), SS General
Wilhelm Harster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Harster) SS General
Franz Hayler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Hayler) SS General
Hans Hayn (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hayn%7C%7CHans) SA Leader
Reinhard Heydrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich), SS General
Richard Hildebrandt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hildebrandt) SS General
Heinrich Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler), Reichsführer-SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsf%C3%BChrer-SS)
Hans Hinkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hinkel), SS Officer
Rudolf Hoess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hoess), Kommandant of Auschwitz[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps#cite_note-7)
Karl Höfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_H%C3%B6fer), SS General



Bernhard von Hülsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_von_H%C3%BClsen), German General
Friedrich Gustav Jaeger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Gustav_Jaeger)
Dietrich von Jagow, SA General, German Diplomat
Friedrich Jeckeln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Jeckeln) SS General
Ernst Kantorowicz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Kantorowicz) Medieval Historian
Hans Kammler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Kammler), SS General
Wilhelm Keitel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Keitel), Field Marshal
Matthias Kleinheisterkamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Kleinheisterkamp) SS General
Waldemar Klingelhöfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_Klingelh%C3%B6fer) SS officer
Erich Koch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Koch), NSDAP leader for East Prussia
Heinrich Kreipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Kreipe), German General
Arthur Liebehenschel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Liebehenschel) SS Officer
Georg Lindemann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Lindemann), German General
Wilhelm List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_List), German General
Wilhelm Friedrich Loeper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Friedrich_Loeper), SS General
Bruno Loerzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Loerzer), Luftwaffe General
Viktor Lutze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Lutze), SA Leader
Paul Moder, SS General
Thomas Müller (SS officer) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M%C3%BCller_%28SS_officer%29) SS Officer
Friedrich T. Noltenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_T._Noltenius) World War I ace
Karl von Oberkamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Oberkamp), SS General[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikorps#cite_note-8)
Günther Pancke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Pancke) SS General
Heinz Pernet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Pernet) SA Brigadeführer
Oswald Pohl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Pohl) SS General
Hans-Adolf Prützmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Adolf_Pr%C3%BCtzmann), SS General
Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann-Bernhard_Ramcke) Luftwaffe General
Johann Rattenhuber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Rattenhuber) SS General
Hanns Albin Rauter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Albin_Rauter) SS Officer
Beppo Römer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beppo_R%C3%B6mer), KPD Member
Emanuel Schäfer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_Sch%C3%A4fer) SS Colonel
Julian Scherner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Scherner) SS Officer



Albert Leo Schlageter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Leo_Schlageter), anti-French Saboteur
Wilhelm Wilhelm Schmid (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schmid_%28SA-Mitglied%29), SA Leader
Karl Eberhard Schöngarth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Eberhard_Sch%C3%B6ngarth), SS General
Werner Schrader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Schrader),German Army Officer
Julius Schreck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Schreck), SS Leader
Franz Seldte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Seldte) SA Leader
Hugo Sperrle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Sperrle), Luftwaffe General
Felix Steiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Steiner), SS General
Walter Stennes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Stennes), SA Leader
Franz Walter Stahlecker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Walter_Stahlecker) SS General
Walter Staudinger, SS General
Gregor Strasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser), NSDAP Member
Otto Strasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser), NSDAP Member
Wilhelm Stuckart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Stuckart), SS General
Friedrich Uebelhoer, SS General
Hans-Jürgen von Blumenthal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-J%C3%BCrgen_von_Blumenthal) German Army Officer
Franz Ritter von Epp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Ritter_von_Epp), NSDAP Reichsstatthalter for Bavaria
Curt von Gottberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_von_Gottberg), SS general
Wolf-Heinrich Graf von Helldorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-Heinrich_Graf_von_Helldorf), SA member
Maximilian von Herff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_von_Herff), SS General
Peter von Heydebreck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_von_Heydebreck), SA leader
Manfred Freiherr von Killinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Freiherr_von_Killinger)
Bolko von Richthofen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolko_von_Richthofen) relative of the Red Baron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Baron)
Ernst von Salomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Salomon), Organisation Consul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_Consul) member
Franz Pfeffer von Salomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Pfeffer_von_Salomon), SA leader
Fritz von Scholz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_von_Scholz) SS General
Otto Teetzmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_Teetzmann&action=edit&redlink=1) SS Oberführer
Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otmar_Freiherr_von_Verschuer) SS Doctor
Hilmar Wäckerle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilmar_W%C3%A4ckerle) SS officer
Walther Wenck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Wenck), German Army General
Karl Wolff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wolff), SS General



So on all counts (who were the fascists, what did they want, what did they oppose) the fascists were a movement to put down socialism and radical working class movements that were exploding after WWI and leading to revolutions and uprisings all over Europe, notably in Russia and Germany and Italy. In Russia the Revolution survived but worker's power did not and so a mutant came out of that. In Germany and Italy the worker's movements were pushed back, then crushed by right-wing reaction - fascism.

[Deicide]

Comrades, you have zen-like patience, I applaud you..

Reading the OP makes me cringe. He's a perfect specimen of a complacent drone spewed out by the 'education' system. Furthermore, it's quite ironic that a fanatical guard-dog of modern capitalism hero worships Adam smith.

Education is Ignorance

Noam Chomsky

Excerpted from Class Warfare, 1995, pp. 19-23, 27-31

(search google for the full article, I can't post links)


DAVID BARSAMIAN: One of the heroes of the current right-wing revival... is Adam Smith. You've done some pretty impressive research on Smith that has excavated... a lot of information that's not coming out. You've often quoted him describing the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people."

NOAM CHOMSKY: I didn't do any research at all on Smith. I just read him. There's no research. Just read it. He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.

He did give an argument for markets, but the argument was that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality. That's the argument for them, because he thought that equality of condition (not just opportunity) is what you should be aiming at. It goes on and on. He gave a devastating critique of what we would call North-South policies. He was talking about England and India. He bitterly condemned the British experiments they were carrying out which were devastating India.

He also made remarks which ought to be truisms about the way states work. He pointed out that its totally senseless to talk about a nation and what we would nowadays call "national interests." He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the "merchants and manufacturers," and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, "most peculiarly attended to," no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies. He didn't have the data to prove it at the time, but he was probably right.

This truism was, a century later, called class analysis, but you don't have to go to Marx to find it. It's very explicit in Adam Smith. It's so obvious that any ten-year-old can see it. So he didn't make a big point of it. He just mentioned it. But that's correct. If you read through his work, he's intelligent. He's a person who was from the Enlightenment. His driving motives were the assumption that people were guided by sympathy and feelings of solidarity and the need for control of their own work, much like other Enlightenment and early Romantic thinkers. He's part of that period, the Scottish Enlightenment.

The version of him that's given today is just ridiculous. But I didn't have to any research to find this out. All you have to do is read. If you're literate, you'll find it out. I did do a little research in the way it's treated, and that's interesting. For example, the University of Chicago, the great bastion of free market economics, etc., etc., published a bicentennial edition of the hero, a scholarly edition with all the footnotes and the introduction by a Nobel Prize winner, George Stigler, a huge index, a real scholarly edition. That's the one I used. It's the best edition. The scholarly framework was very interesting, including Stigler's introduction. It's likely he never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely false. I went through a bunch of examples in writing about it, in Year 501 and elsewhere.

But even more interesting in some ways was the index. Adam Smith is very well known for his advocacy of division of labor. Take a look at "division of labor" in the index and there are lots and lots of things listed. But there's one missing, namely his denunciation of division of labor, the one I just cited. That's somehow missing from the index. It goes on like this. I wouldn't call this research because it's ten minutes' work, but if you look at the scholarship, then it's interesting.

I want to be clear about this. There is good Smith scholarship. If you look at the serious Smith scholarship, nothing I'm saying is any surprise to anyone. How could it be? You open the book and you read it and it's staring you right in the face. On the other hand if you look at the myth of Adam Smith, which is the only one we get, the discrepancy between that and the reality is enormous.

This is true of classical liberalism in general. The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them. For example, Humboldt, like Smith, says, Consider a craftsman who builds some beautiful thing. Humboldt says if he does it under external coercion, like pay, for wages, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is. On the other hand, if he does it out of his own free, creative expression of himself, under free will, not under external coercion of wage labor, then we also admire what he is because he's a human being. He said any decent socioeconomic system will be based on the assumption that people have the freedom to inquire and create -- since that's the fundamental nature of humans -- in free association with others, but certainly not under the kinds of external constraints that came to be called capitalism.

It's the same when you read Jefferson. He lived a half century later, so he saw state capitalism developing, and he despised it, of course. He said it's going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism.

There's a side current here which is rarely looked at but which is also quite fascinating. That's the working class literature of the nineteenth century. They didn't read Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, but they're saying the same things. Read journals put out by the people called the "factory girls of Lowell," young women in the factories, mechanics, and other working people who were running their own newspapers. It's the same kind of critique. There was a real battle fought by working people in England and the U.S. to defend themselves against what they called the degradation and oppression and violence of the industrial capitalist system, which was not only dehumanizing them but was even radically reducing their intellectual level. So, you go back to the mid-nineteenth century and these so-called "factory girls," young girls working in the Lowell [Massachusetts] mills, were reading serious contemporary literature. They recognized that the point of the system was to turn them into tools who would be manipulated, degraded, kicked around, and so on. And they fought against it bitterly for a long period. That's the history of the rise of capitalism.

The other part of the story is the development of corporations, which is an interesting story in itself. Adam Smith didn't say much about them, but he did criticize the early stages of them. Jefferson lived long enough to see the beginnings, and he was very strongly opposed to them. But the development of corporations really took place in the early twentieth century and very late in the nineteenth century. Originally, corporations existed as a public service. People would get together to build a bridge and they would be incorporated for that purpose by the state. They built the bridge and that's it. They were supposed to have a public interest function. Well into the 1870s, states were removing corporate charters. They were granted by the state. They didn't have any other authority. They were fictions. They were removing corporate charters because they weren't serving a public function. But then you get into the period of the trusts and various efforts to consolidate power that were beginning to be made in the late nineteenth century. It's interesting to look at the literature. The courts didn't really accept it. There were some hints about it. It wasn't until the early twentieth century that courts and lawyers designed a new socioeconomic system. It was never done by legislation. It was done mostly by courts and lawyers and the power they could exercise over individual states. New Jersey was the first state to offer corporations any right they wanted. Of course, all the capital in the country suddenly started to flow to New Jersey, for obvious reasons. Then the other states had to do the same thing just to defend themselves or be wiped out. It's kind of a small-scale globalization.

Then the courts and the corporate lawyers came along and created a whole new body of doctrine which gave corporations authority and power that they never had before. If you look at the background of it, it's the same background that led to fascism and Bolshevism. A lot of it was supported by people called progressives, for these reasons: They said, individual rights are gone. We are in a period of corporatization of power, consolidation of power, centralization. That's supposed to be good if you're a progressive, like a Marxist-Leninist. Out of that same background came three major things: fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny. They all grew out of the same more or less Hegelian roots. It's fairly recent. We think of corporations as immutable, but they were designed. It was a conscious design which worked as Adam Smith said: the principal architects of policy consolidate state power and use it for their interests. It was certainly not popular will. It's basically court decisions and lawyers' decisions, which created a form of private tyranny which is now more massive in many ways than even state tyranny was. These are major parts of modern twentieth century history. The classical liberals would be horrified. They didn't even imagine this. But the smaller things that they saw, they were already horrified about. This would have totally scandalized Adam Smith or Jefferson or anyone like that....

[Metacomet]

http://a.static.memegenerator.net/cache/instances/500x/8/8731/8940829.jpg

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm not forcing you to do anything except keep your hands off me and my stuff.

Uh, so you are declaring that you (or a capitalist) rightfully owns certain things...Now, if I disagree with this, what happens? You force me to obey your morals.

Its no different from a communist "forcing" you not to consider the means of production as your own personal plaything.

[ColonelCossack]

The people who found Fascist parties attractive were also the same kind of people that found Socialist parties attractive. In other words, they were people like you.

Yeah but I support socialism, but am viruntly opposed to fascism. So your argumen doesn't relly work.

[Rafiq]

Capitalism is good, you've been humiliated and theoretically destroyed, you've gotten shit upon several times. I would advise not posting anymore, to save your sorry ass the embaressment.

[Klaatu]

Capitalism is good, you've been humiliated and theoretically destroyed, you've gotten shit upon several times. I would advise not posting anymore, to save your sorry ass the embaressment.

Comrade Rafiq, I think "capitalism is good" is one of those self-righteous folks that think their ideals are superior to ours (in fact they actually consider themselves to be superior to us.) We have seen this behavior before with Bible-Thumpers and bigots. It is their mentality.

You can always tell one of these types because they never seem to be able to create an original idea, that is, they continually repeat what they hear on Fox News, or what they've read from the likes of vonMises, Friedman, et al. They get caught up in the rightist propaganda without stopping and giving it serious thought, as though this would be heretical (for example, how can cutting taxes possibly increase treasury revenues?)

Of everything they preach, we have heard before, ad nauseam. They do not realize that we are immune to their thoroughly discredited theories.

[Revolution starts with U]

I remember once trolling a self-righteous prick just by saying "I'm better than you." Then he would list all his accomplishments, and I would say "ya but I'm better than you, because I'm better than you. You suck! lulz"

He was gettin so mad :lol:

[capitalism is good]

Hi everybody,

I would love to reply to everybody here but I only have time to make one or two replies. Brospierre has made some interesting comments. So I will reply to him today.




And here is the problem. You subscribe to a popular misconception of what constitutes a capitalist and a socialist mode of production. A capitalist mode of production entails private ownership of the means of production, bourgeois class rule, and the employment of wage labor on the means of production to accumulate capital.


OK. Let's take a look at your second sentence. You said that capitalism entails private ownership of the means of production (eg farms and factories). This I agree with. But you went on to add "bourgeosie class rule and the employment ... accumulate capital."
This part comes from your Marxist dogma which is false. You guys have this obsession with class struggle of the bourgeosie vs the working class. This does not reflect reality today.

Marx was a man of the 19th century and so was affected by the events, practices, political and social situation of that era. His ideology is based on the reality of that time and is today out-dated.

At that time, Europe was ruled by Kings and Nobles and the common people had little power. Marx read about the French Revolution and was deeply affected by it. He witnessed the revolutions taking place in 1848 and was also affected by that. It made sense for the peasants (the working class) to revolt against Louis XVI and the nobles(the bourgeosie). Social mobility was poor. It was impossible for a peasant to become a King.

At that time, power and wealth were in the hands of those lucky enough to be born in the nobility (I call it the lucky sperm club). The top 1 of the population earned 90% of the national income. (Sounds familiar? The OWS still talks about the 1%.) Europe was still mostly agrarian. The industrial revolution which started in England was in its infancy. Wealth was still concentrated in the land. The nobles did not work and simply collect their rent from the peasants who work the land. Thus you get the "working class" vs the bourgeosie who live off the sweat of the working class.

But today, things are vastly different. Now we have well developed democracies. Why revolt when you can vote for whoever you want? Social mobility is good. You can start out poor and become a billionaire. Steve Jobs is a good example of that. You get rich not because of the accident of birth but through successful entrepreneurship.

So the idea of the bourgeosie class is silly because you can be poor and later be rich. So you can start out a “worker” and become a bourgeosie capitalist like Steve Jobs. The term, "worker" is also outdated because now nearly everybody works. In fact, the successful capitalists are very hard workers.

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Warren Buffet are very hard-working people. The idea of a non-working bourgeosie class living off the sweat of peasants or factory workers is so 19th century. Please, gentlemen. We are now in the 21st century. We are all workers except those who are in school or retired and those on welfare. Those on unemployment benefits or the dole, are now the new parasitic class like the nobility was at the time of the French Ancien Regime.

While the poor can become rich, the rich can also become poor under capitalism. There are so many stories of rich people going bust. The Hunt brothers are a good example. This social mobility means that the top 1% that you guys want to fight keep changing faces every year. Who knows? One of you might be there someday. I sure hope I make it.

The next point is that in Marx's day, the stock market was not well developed. Today it is. I got a job. So I guess I am a "worker" by your defination of the word. But I also own stocks of companies eg google, apple etc. So I am also a capitalist.

Most people (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx)own stocks and are therefore capitalist. But most people are also part of the "working class" because they work for others. So most people are both capitalist and worker. Therefore the line between bourgeosie and worker has vanished.

A lot of companies are so big that no individual can own 100% of it. Even Bill Gates, world's richest man, had to sell stocks of Microsoft to the public. In case you don't know, when you buy stock you become an owner of the company.

To sum up, there are three points I want to make:
1)The concept of bourgeosie and working class is outdated. Most of us straddle both classes. So the class war is outdated.
2)Today power and wealth does not come from being a member of the lucky sperm club. Power comes from the people because we now live in democracies. Wealth comes from your own abilities through successful entrepreneurship. Anyone with ability can rise to be the one pecent.

3)Those who make it rich are also workers. Successful entrepreneurs are very hard working people. So the concept of the "working class" is also outdated.

Whew. I commented so much on your second sentence. I fear, I don't have time to reply in full to even your post let alone everybody.



A socialist mode of production entails public ownership of the means of production, democratic planning of the economy, proletarian class rule, and the abolition of all existing property and value relations. This is the premise that we leftists accept. We aren't fighting for taxation or equality of income, because we recognize that this is impossible where capital can still be accumulated. This would also imply that the capitalist mode of production is still in existence, and we seek its destruction. Your definition of laissez-faire capitalism is partly true, but it lacks an in-depth material analysis. What I mean is that it lost its analogue long ago, when irreconcilable class antagonisms necessitated the bourgeois state to make concessions so that the bourgeoisie could retain their class power. In other words, the bourgeoisie responded to the shifting material conditions in such a pragmatic way that reconciled (for the time being) class antagonisms and thus prolonging their class rule.


The problem I have is that different people have different idea of what Socialism means. From what you wrote, you would favor nationalization of all farms and factories. I know of people who vote regulary for Social Democratic parties who do not want nationalization. What they want is more welfare benefits - like state pensions, healthcare etc. To them, the ultimate goal is a more equal society and do not care how that is achieved. Broadly speaking, the tax and welfare spending model does obey Marx's dictum, "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

So the rich pay more taxes because they have more ability. The poor, if they are sick, is entitled to free health care paid for by the rich. So they are getting stuff according to their needs. There are people who call themselves Socialists who are happy with that. Then there are some who consider the Soviet Union, Cuba as Socialist while others do not. So with each individual I have to ask what they mean by Socialism.

In your case, you want to destroy capitalism ie private ownership of all means of production. Have you thought how that would work in practice? All attempts to abolish private ownership has failed. The Soviet Union tried it and it did not work.

What do you mean, "laissez faire lost its analogue long ago". Lassiez faire is simply a theoretical concept to define capitalism. It was never practiced in full anywhere. As I said earlier, it is impossible to have a 100% capitalist economy just as it is impossible to have a 100% Socialist economy which you seem to be still attempting by proposing nationalization of all means of production. All economies are hybrids. It's a matter of degree between two theorectical poles.

The degree of capitalism I personally favor would be the America at the time of Calvin Coolidge.

The class conflict is a creation by Marxists in the 19th century but is now outdated for reasons I gave above. We are all in the same class because we are all workers. There are rich and poor poeple to be sure but what that means is there are rich and poor workers. The poor need not remain poor forever unlike in the days of the Ancien Regime because there is a high degree of social mobility under capitalism.

Well that's all the time I have for today. Bye.

[¿Que?]

The right surely has become a caricature of itself with this guy. Either that or I'm getting smarter. I'm not going to bother responding to everything he/she said, just to point out how all his/her arguments are either based on misconceptions, misunderstanding, or deceit.

For example, he/she gives a couple of examples like steve jobs and bill gates of workers becoming rich. Nevermind that both of those people are white, and came from middle class backgrounds, which already gives them a leg up over the majority of the world's population. Name one Chinese factory worker who has made it to an executive position, raking in a few hundred thousand and up to a million in salary alone, and I'll just shut the fuck up. Otherwise, GTFO.

ANd I don't want to hear anything about how china is communist, because those factories operate in the least regulated, least union friendly places in the world, special economic zones they call them.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not to mention his insinuation that in Marx day all capitalists were of the nobility. I believe the kids would say "lulz, nice history bro."

[citizen of industry]

Not to mention his insinuation that in Marx day all capitalists were of the nobility. I believe the kids would say "lulz, nice history bro."

Yeah, coulda sworn Marx wrote something about capitalism being progressive and shattering feudalism. Aside from the fact that it is evident in the world around us, I'll have to go back and take me a look see just to make sure "capitalism is good," doesn't actually know something about world history, feudalism, nobility, the industrial revolution, classical economism and modern economy, and isn't just spewing out far-right platitudes repeatedly while shutting his eyes to the world around him.

[capitalism is good]

The right surely has become a caricature of itself with this guy. Either that or I'm getting smarter. I'm not going to bother responding to everything he/she said, just to point out how all his/her arguments are either based on misconceptions, misunderstanding, or deceit.

For example, he/she gives a couple of examples like steve jobs and bill gates of workers becoming rich. Nevermind that both of those people are white, and came from middle class backgrounds, which already gives them a leg up over the majority of the world's population. Name one Chinese factory worker who has made it to an executive position, raking in a few hundred thousand and up to a million in salary alone, and I'll just shut the fuck up. Otherwise, GTFO.

ANd I don't want to hear anything about how china is communist, because those factories operate in the least regulated, least union friendly places in the world, special economic zones they call them.

How about Sim Mong Hoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_Wong_Hoo)? He founded Creative technology and became a billionairre.

What about Li Kah Shing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-shing)? He was a refugee from Communist China and started out as a salesman. Li is the richest Asian.

[capitalism is good]

So according to Hitler he was a socialist because he believed in private property; but Marxism was not socialism, because it did not believe in private property.



Not all Socialists opppose private property. The Labour Party of Britain does not. Generally, Socialists want equality of wealth. Some advocate abolishment of private property to do that. Others simpley advocate taxing the richer citizens to pay for welfare citizens to those with lower income.

Equality of wealth is the common denominator.

[citizen of industry]

Not all Socialists opppose private property. The Labour Party of Britain does not. Generally, Socialists want equality of wealth. Some advocate abolishment of private property to do that. Others simpley advocate taxing the richer citizens to pay for welfare citizens to those with lower income.

Equality of wealth is the common denominator.

Semantics. Marxists advocate the abolishment of private property. I can cite you hundreds of sources and quotes if you like. We are speaking of "socialists" in the sense of scientific socialists who are students of Marxian economics. If a fascist rejects Marxian economics but chooses to use the word "socialism" in their party name, it does not make them so. Likewise if you were to form a party advocating a free market and label it "socialist" it would not make it so. If I call my house a car, it doesn't mean it is a car. To make a comparison, since you think capitalism is good, if I were to form a communist party and call it "the social-capitalist party" you would probably tire of having to explain to people that you weren't a communist. National-socialists, the Labor Party of Britain, and the US Democrat party are not socialists. Their program is not based on Marxian analysis and economics, and you will not find a single supporter of any of them on a website of the revolutionary left. In any case, if you look up the word "socialism" in the dictionary it should give you a hint that wealth distribution isn't the common denominator.

Now that we are back to the fact that socialists advocate the abolishment of private property, you are probably tempted to resort to the time tested "keep yall's hands off my stuff!" argument. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, Marxian economics makes a distinction between personal property and private property, the latter used to exploit labor. So don't worry, I don't want to share a toothbrush with you or borrow your undies. You know, I put in my time reading Adam Smith and tons of other passages from classical economists people like you worship so much. Why don't you reciprocate and read some Marx before making irrelevant arguments.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure the Labour Party considers itself socialist.

So are socialists anybody YOU deem socialist (meaning everybody but trollbertarians)?

[RGacky3]

Not all Socialists opppose private property. The Labour Party of Britain does not. Generally, Socialists want equality of wealth. Some advocate abolishment of private property to do that. Others simpley advocate taxing the richer citizens to pay for welfare citizens to those with lower income.

Equality of wealth is the common denominator.

No its not, no socialist thinks a doctor should have the same compensation as, say a librarian.

Equality of SAY over economic issues is hte common denominator, how they go about that is a different issue.

[RGacky3]

How about Sim Mong Hoo (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_Wong_Hoo)? He founded Creative technology and became a billionairre.

What about Li Kah Shing (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-shing)? He was a refugee from Communist China and started out as a salesman. Li is the richest Asian.

So what ....


You guys have this obsession with class struggle of the bourgeosie vs the working class. This does not reflect reality today.

Marx was a man of the 19th century and so was affected by the events, practices, political and social situation of that era. His ideology is based on the reality of that time and is today out-dated.


Your right, back in Marx's day it was extreme to say what he said, that 1 out of 9 control 90% of the wealth, that would be a socialist paradise now.

Back in marx's day you did'nt have a few banks controlling almost ALL of the finances, you had local finance dealing with local industry, back in Marx's day you did'nt have mass encorporation as basically a sort of state protection on economic power, back in Marx's day yo udid'nt have multi-national conglomerates controlling markets.

Class is more relivant now than ever.


At that time, Europe was ruled by Kings and Nobles and the common people had little power. Marx read about the French Revolution and was deeply affected by it. He witnessed the revolutions taking place in 1848 and was also affected by that. It made sense for the peasants (the working class) to revolt against Louis XVI and the nobles(the bourgeosie). Social mobility was poor. It was impossible for a peasant to become a King.


No Bourgeoisie were capitalists, not nobles.

Also it was never about social-mobility, most of what Marx did was point out internal contradictions in capitalism.


But today, things are vastly different. Now we have well developed democracies. Why revolt when you can vote for whoever you want? Social mobility is good. You can start out poor and become a billionaire. Steve Jobs is a good example of that. You get rich not because of the accident of birth but through successful entrepreneurship.


People started out poor and became billionaires back them too, the point is Capitalism does'nt work for the vast majority of the people and it is unsustainable, it has internal contradictions that cause economic collapse, and it systematically excludes a HUGE percentage of the people from economic life.

Also democracies now respond more to economic power than votes.


So the idea of the bourgeosie class is silly because you can be poor and later be rich. So you can start out a “worker” and become a bourgeosie capitalist like Steve Jobs. The term, "worker" is also outdated because now nearly everybody works. In fact, the successful capitalists are very hard workers.

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Warren Buffet are very hard-working people. The idea of a non-working bourgeosie class living off the sweat of peasants or factory workers is so 19th century. Please, gentlemen. We are now in the 21st century. We are all workers except those who are in school or retired and those on welfare. Those on unemployment benefits or the dole, are now the new parasitic class like the nobility was at the time of the French Ancien Regime.


It deos'nt matter if they work or not, nobles and kings worked too, that is'nt the point, their main income does'nt come from their labor, int comes from the labor of other people.

CEOs productivity did'nt mutliply many many times over hte last 10 years, their work idd'nt multiply, the workers productivity multiplied and the CEOs took the wealth.

CEOs pay is perhaps 1% his own labor, and 99% other peoples labor.

Kings worked too, does'nt justify anything.

If you want to see pay based on merit put it to a democratic vote within the company, you'll see something much different.


The next point is that in Marx's day, the stock market was not well developed. Today it is. I got a job. So I guess I am a "worker" by your defination of the word. But I also own stocks of companies eg google, apple etc. So I am also a capitalist.


Capitalist and worker is a social relation. And stockholders are not capitalists, unless they are major stockholders, a capitalist is someone who CONTROLS the wealth, so it would be the board of directors.

Also encorporation comes with it TONS AND TONS of more contradictions in capitalism that marx did'nt fully expose (he did slightly), but latter marxists, keynsians and institutionalists did expose.

For example it forces short term profits over long term vision, stockholders are extremely liquid whereas other stakeholders (workers, community members and the such) are not, it creates perverse incentives for the capitalists/executives, since their liability is extremely limited, there are TONS of problems.

The fact that workers have their pensions in the stock market just makes it worse.

Does'nt make them capitalist though.


A lot of companies are so big that no individual can own 100% of it. Even Bill Gates, world's richest man, had to sell stocks of Microsoft to the public. In case you don't know, when you buy stock you become an owner of the company.


It does'nt matter who OWNS the company, it matters who controls the profits.


In your case, you want to destroy capitalism ie private ownership of all means of production. Have you thought how that would work in practice? All attempts to abolish private ownership has failed. The Soviet Union tried it and it did not work.


The USSR did'nt destroy all private ownership, and the ones that they did destroy they just replaced with state ownership (non democratic).

Heres how you do it, make nationally important industries democraticically accountable, and make an encorporation law that make sthe workers the voters rather than the share holders.

Those are 2 policies you could make which would make a HUGE difference and a step towards socialis. (You'd need a revolution for those 2 anyway though.)


The problem I have is that different people have different idea of what Socialism means. From what you wrote, you would favor nationalization of all farms and factories. I know of people who vote regulary for Social Democratic parties who do not want nationalization. What they want is more welfare benefits - like state pensions, healthcare etc. To them, the ultimate goal is a more equal society and do not care how that is achieved. Broadly speaking, the tax and welfare spending model does obey Marx's dictum, "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."


The tax and welfare model is a failing one.

You need a degree of productive national industries (norway), or strong worker involvement in manegement (Germany) to have a functioning social-democracy, but even then, ultimatley you'll ahve to get rid of hte internal contradictions of capitalism.


The class conflict is a creation by Marxists in the 19th century but is now outdated for reasons I gave above. We are all in the same class because we are all workers. There are rich and poor poeple to be sure but what that means is there are rich and poor workers. The poor need not remain poor forever unlike in the days of the Ancien Regime because there is a high degree of social mobility under capitalism.


Its actually WORSE in the US than the social democracies, the more capitalist you get, the worse the social mobility.

[citizen of industry]

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and Warren Buffet are very hard-working people. The idea of a non-working bourgeosie class living off the sweat of peasants or factory workers is so 19th century. Please, gentlemen. We are now in the 21st century.

Wait, are you serious? You want to use Steve Jobs as an example of not living off the sweat of factory workers when Apple has a trail of child labor allegations against them and they have to build fences on top of Apple factories to keep the workers from killing themselves because the working conditions are so awful? You want to use Bill Gates as an example when microsoft is notorious for employing temp staff they can easily lay off to avoid labor law and paying decent wages? Sounds like the 21st century isn't much different that the 19th. Why? The economic laws governing capitalism are the same.


While the poor can become rich, the rich can also become poor under capitalism. There are so many stories of rich people going bust.

Exactly, because it is an unstable system that results in overproduction and crisis.

[citizen of industry]

Speaking of Apple, I read today their plan to deal with the child labor and suicide problem is...wait...you guessed it...automation! What do you think, "Capitalism is good"? Automating plants and firing all the workers? I believe our 19th century Marx would say something along the lines of they will join the "industrial reserve army," aka ranks of the unemployed. Taken overall, what do you think the results will be for the rate of wages when more people are unemployed and willing to work for less, the tendency of the rate of profit to decline, and the ability for capitalists to sell their products with that many less consumers? They are workers who should get the lowest wage possible when they are working for you, right? So you can make more profits and "trickle down." But after they finish work they are "consumers" who you expect to buy your products, right? You see what I'm hinting at, don't you?

[capitalism is good]

Wait, are you serious? You want to use Steve Jobs as an example of not living off the sweat of factory workers when Apple has a trail of child labor allegations against them and they have to build fences on top of Apple factories to keep the workers from killing themselves because the working conditions are so awful? You want to use Bill Gates as an example when microsoft is notorious for employing temp staff they can easily lay off to avoid labor law and paying decent wages? Sounds like the 21st century isn't much different that the 19th. Why? The economic laws governing capitalism are the same.



Exactly, because it is an unstable system that results in overproduction and crisis.

Apple does not have factories in China. Apple buys its components from Chinese companies like FoxConn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn)who does the manufacturing to give you the Ipad and other stuff.

It has no control over FoxConn's hiring policies. It's up to China's regulators to ensure that labor laws are obeyed. It's not Apple's job to do that. In any case, it does not have the power to enforce China's labor laws.

Apple can drop FoxConn and appoint another manufacturer after its contract expires. That's about all. But if the market (that's you and me) demands cheap Apple products, then where else can Apple go?

Capitalism is a stable system that has survived for hundreds of years. It is also a dynamic system. Those who fail go bust. Those who succeed get rich. This is what economist Shumpeter call "creative destruction".

Someone loses a job somewhere but someone else gains a job.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

His ideology produced the welfare state which divides the people between producers and moochers.
What? The modern Welfare-state was introduced by Otto von Bismarck in Germany in the late 19th century. Bismarck was a hard right-wing conservative, and introduced welfare legislation in order to curtail the growing socialist movement.

Only 45% of Americans pay Federal Income taxes. But they get most of the entitlements. When will they pay their fair share in taxes?
It's harder to get state-benefits (welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc.) now than in previous decades. More and more people who need these programs are being denied. I am one of them.

[Revolution starts with U]

Apple does not have factories in China. Apple buys its components from Chinese companies like FoxConn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn)who does the manufacturing to give you the Ipad and other stuff.

It has no control over FoxConn's hiring policies. It's up to China's regulators to ensure that labor laws are obeyed. It's not Apple's job to do that. In any case, it does not have the power to enforce China's labor laws.

Apple can drop FoxConn and appoint another manufacturer after its contract expires. That's about all. But if the market (that's you and me) demands cheap Apple products, then where else can Apple go?

Capitalism is a stable system that has survived for hundreds of years. It is also a dynamic system. Those who fail go bust. Those who succeed get rich. This is what economist Shumpeter call "creative destruction".

Someone loses a job somewhere but someone else gains a job.

Feudalism lasted for 1500 years, easy. A lot of nobles lost their lands. A lot of new families were added to the nobility. You need to put that nose in a history book.

[Conscript]

Apple can drop FoxConn and appoint another manufacturer after its contract expires. That's about all. But if the market (that's you and me) demands cheap Apple products, then where else can Apple go?

A fine example of the necessarily predatory nature capitalism has when it comes to workers. The same people who consume the products, the working class, are pitted against themselves, as consumers. It's a terrible distinction that only serves the interest of capital.

[RGacky3]

Apple does not have factories in China. Apple buys its components from Chinese companies like FoxConn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn)who does the manufacturing to give you the Ipad and other stuff.

It has no control over FoxConn's hiring policies. It's up to China's regulators to ensure that labor laws are obeyed. It's not Apple's job to do that. In any case, it does not have the power to enforce China's labor laws.

Apple can drop FoxConn and appoint another manufacturer after its contract expires. That's about all. But if the market (that's you and me) demands cheap Apple products, then where else can Apple go?

This is TOTAL ignorance.

its control of FoxConns hiring policies is the nature of capitalism, in the sense that it has the monopolistic-like power of demanding lower and lower cost so it can extract more and more profits.

No one is blaiming apple, we are blaiming capitalism. Capitalism is the cause of these abhorrent inhumane conditions, the same went with the story of Walmart, as it took over the retain industry it had more and more power to make manufacturing companies live or die, which means manufacaturing companies NEED to fall in line and continually cut costs or lose access to Walmarts buying power.

What happens when you continually cut costs?
first off these abhorent conditions you see, when you have tons and tons of both physical and economic externalities, one of which ends up causing collapses of capitalism.

Imagen if we had socialism, all these excess profits from increased productivity could go to the workers, making THEM CONSUMERS AS WELL, giving more people jobs, and raising hte living standards for everyone, rather than it leading to unemployment and economic crisis, then you'd also have a satisfied market that is ruled with one man one vote decisions in the macro, and internally in the company one man one vote as well.

You can word it anyway you want "we demand it, bla bla bla" Yeah, but thats the way capitalism works, and socialism (economic democracy), would give us a better outcome.

This is just ignorance.


Capitalism is a stable system that has survived for hundreds of years. It is also a dynamic system. Those who fail go bust. Those who succeed get rich. This is what economist Shumpeter call "creative destruction".

creative destruction, expecially when capitalism becomes advanced, will eventually lead to crisis, creative destruction is a good thing at a certain level, but unless you have a democratic economy, it leads to think like the creative destruction of the housing market through derivatives, something that does'nt benefit society at all.

Capitalism requires a 3% compound growth to continue going, we are at the end game of that, there is very little place to grow, our economy has come to the point where the derivatives market is 11 times larger than the natural economy, we have come to a point where its more profitable for private equity firms to destroy buisinesses that ARE profitable, and strip them and re-sell them causing all sorts of negative externalities, for a short term profit, we've come to the point where the tendancy for the rate of profit to fall and excess capacity and financialization have risen to where capitalism can hardly continue.


Someone loses a job somewhere but someone else gains a job.

2 people loose a job working 8 hours a week for $35 an hour to 1 guy working 12 hours a week for $0.10 cents an hour.

Then what do you have, dispite a humanitarian disaster on all fronts, you have an externality where about 34.90 will not be spent in the economy, because that extra income will end up going to the super rich that will just put it in financial markets.

Capitalism is dying my friend.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Yes, I know some of you will say that. There are two groups of people here whenever someone mentions Socialist dictatorships like Ceausescu's Romania or Pol Pot's Cambodia:

1)Those who say that such places do not represent true Socialism.

2)Those that defend them and deny that they were hell holes.

For those in category 1, such unsavory regimes as Cambodia and Romania do not come close to the fantasized Socialist/Communist paradise that these revolutionary leftists have in their minds. They are pursuing revolution for a dream that cannot come true.

The more moderate leftists would point to Sweden and say that is what we want.



Marx was a bum who did not work. In fact, I read somewhere that he exploited labor. He had one worker, a domestic help, whom he did not pay and with whom he had an illegitimate child. This is according to a book I read, "Intellectuals (http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Marx-Tolstoy-Sartre-Chomsky/dp/product-description/0060916575)" by Paul Johnson.

I wrote:



Brospierre replied:



You know what? You are right that Marx did not say anything about the welfare state. He wanted revolution to overthrow the bourgeosie.

However, he had a "star pupil" by the name of Eduard Bernstein who believed that Socialism can be achieved within the framework of democracy bit by bit and there was no need for a violent revolution.

Today's social democratic parties in Europe, the Labour Party of Britain and the Democratic Party of the USA are the intellectual descendents of Bernstein. This is one strain of Socialism. If equality can be reached by taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth through the welfare state, then there is no need for bloody revolution that some members of the Left wants. The goal is the same. So its still Marx's fault.

Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot etc followed Marx and went for violent revolution. I gather that the people here, by calling themselves revolutionary leftists are probably of this second strain of Socialism. Unlike this first strain of Socialism, it is undemocratic in nature and in my books, illegitimate.

The third strain of Socialism is Fascism. I mean fascism in its original meaning. The founder of Fascism was of course Benito Mussolinni who started out in the most radical wing of the Socialist party. Socialists are fond of saying nonsense like, "The workingman has no country". They despise nationalism.

But when WWI broke out, Mussolinni realized that nationalizm was a popular force and did not want to sound unpatriotic. But Socialists are supposed to say nonsense like "The only war we are interested in is the class war."

Italians supported their nation in war. So he left the Socialist party to found the Fascist party. While nationalistic, his party's economics program was Socialist. it was both Socialist and Nationalistic. It called for nationalisation of the means of production for example. So fascism was a leftist ideology. The same thing happened in Germany. The full name of the Nazi party was "German workers National Socialist Party". They were going after voters like you.

This is the third strain of Socialism. So the tree that Marx planted grew three main branches:

1)Democratic Socialism - you end up with countries like Greece. To be fair you also got Sweden which is not so bad.
2)Totalitarian socialism - you end up with countries like Soviet Union, Cuba and N Korea.
3)Fascism - you ended up with Mussolinni and Hitler.


What is this I dont even

[Leftsolidarity]

http://www.scadradio.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/too-cute-kitten.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQB4qVL7CT2q_LdetVG7vooywivaDHLw lZl4PsdAhJi5Ciel4bgrxhCCqVygg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuGnYh3Ygve-GWmf5Eacm_NZ2STC5RvieD0m1j0HsYj9pecxfVfnFp-Grt

[¿Que?]

How about Sim Mong Hoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim_Wong_Hoo)? He founded Creative technology and became a billionairre.

What about Li Kah Shing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-shing)? He was a refugee from Communist China and started out as a salesman. Li is the richest Asian.
Where does it say on either of those articles that they worked in SEZ's? In any case, your argument is that these two people are a rare breed because they work real hard and made it, and the millions of working poor that stay poor are just lazy, which is typical of someone who's too stupid to see how capitalism is in fact not good (albeit better than feudalism).