Originally posted by RedLine99 And seeing that socialism leads to communism I totally agree.

I totally disagree. IF anything, the opposite is true. In countries where there was or is socialism, there are no communist revolutions.

Do you think Nicholas II of russia was a socialist? Or the constituent assembly after that? The fact is that both communist and fascist revolutions occur when the government cannot, or will not, look after their welfare.

Look at postwar Britain. Probably there was never a more socialist country on the planet. Did it lead to communism, and then to fascism? no.

Socialism is not the embryonic form of communism, it is in fact the most effective defence against it.

It depends on which of the many definitions of Socialism you're using. If, for example, you take the Marxist-Leninist line, Socialism is the authoritarian state preceding Anarchic Communism...

Communism is considered by many (including me) to be socialism taken to the extreme.

There are different types of socialism... Soviet Russia was a socialist nation (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) as was Nazi Germany (National SOCIALIST). To say that what you live under is representative of all socialism is about as accurate as saying the Catholic CHurch is representative of all christianity... a blantantly false statement.

Nazi Germany was economically Centrist. The only serious government influences upon the market came when necessary for preparation for war; autarky, rationing etc. Hitler is quoted as saying that the Free Market was essential to the Aryan way of life.

The word "Socialist" in the party's name was a propaganda action, nothing more. It must also be remembered that "Socialist" was a term used by a number of Centrist parties in the Weimar years.

turbo: when I said postwar I meant the years immediately after the war. You might argue that that socialism went all the way up to 1979... but Thatcher more than put paid to it after that.

Now, Britain is pretty centrist... more socialist than the USA, but that's not saying much.

Joey is right, Nazi Germany was economically centrist. There were certain red nazi: Roehm, Strasser, and to some extent, Goebbels. However, the hostility Hitler faced from the Unions and the funding from business is a testimony to the fact that he was by no means serious about his lefty rhetoric.


But anyway, if you want to call the socialism which I am talking about the-kind-of-socialism-cynic-means, feel free. There are other kinds of socialism, but if I know what kind i mean, and you do too, what does it mmatter what we call it?

Originally posted by Cynic
Socialism is not the embryonic form of communism, it is in fact the most effective defence against it.

I disagree. Marxist demanded and predicted a catastophic revolution to quickly achieve political power, eliminate private property, and ultimately the state.

A violent overthrough of government was indeed used, of course, in history, but the European and American Marxists abandoned their revoltuionary fervor and became socialists so they could incorporate themselves into the government and effect some of the Marxist objectives legislatively. For example, the Fabian Society first organized in 1884 promoted the gradualism principle.

The Marxist influenced socialist objectives included a heavy. progressive income tax, abolition of the right to inheritance, a central bank, abolition of private property, and other communist factors which are incorporated into today's so-called capitalist societies.

What is strange is that the US policy seems to have intentionally set up the more radical forms of Communism through pro-Communist propaganda and abandoning the freedom fighters. For example, in China, the US could have easily helped the Chinese Nationalists defeat the Chinese Communists during the civil war there. The US was present in the late 1940's and sympathized with the Chinese who had struggled against the Japanese invasion. For some strange and tragic reason, American propaganda promoted the Communists and American policy also allowed the Communists victory.

The apparent unraveling of Communism in the world may be misleading. Let's look at the basic premises of Communism. Marxist ideology begins with aethism. The second premise is transformation by revolution. This revolution can be and has been non-violent as Fabians promoted years ago. The third premise is control of all means of communication. The forth premise is collectivism such as labor unions. The fifth premise is controlling the economy and using it for political power such as the establishment of central banks like the Fed in America. The sixth premise is that Communism is an idelogy that reduces reality to one level and in reality ends up as the fantasy of a single dictator. The seventh premise is that is a power theory. It provides the justification for attaining power and power once obtained is difficult to shake loose.

So I agree that Communism is the tragedy of socialism taken to the extreme. Socialism unchecked leads to an increase in socialism, so although not the radical, violent forms in certain parts of the world, socialism has many of the same objectives as Marxist Communism.

Again Cynic, read up on Antonio Gramsci.

Snouter: Your theory is that socialism is just a much more gradual shift towards communism than the revolutionary types?

All socialist countries are moving further left?

My question: Is anyone moving right, not in a single presidency, but as a trend?

Justin

All socialist countries are moving further left?

Actually, many European nations are moving to the right as far as immigration goes post 9/11.
I also know that some have ditched some of their programs and are moving towards a more capitalistic system.

Thank you, Snouter.

I've got a headache today that is affecting my usual unclear thinking.


government cannot, or will not, look after their welfare

This is the basis for socialism? Or is it Marxism?

Look at postwar Britain. Probably there was never a more socialist country on the planet

Maybe I'd feel better if you guys shipped Marx's corpse back to Prussia.:D

The basis for socialism is that the Government takes a high level of responsibility for the economic welfare of all of its citizens. If people don't see that the government is doing something, they will go to extremes with communism... where the government has TOTAL responsibility for ALL of their welfare.

Communism turns to fascism. Stalin was a fascist masquerading as a communist because he did not care about the people's welfare at all. People assume he is communist because he believed in total government control. This largely misses the point. A socialist will tolerate economic control for the sake of economic welfare, but not political. A communist will tolerate both for the sake of economic welfare.

A fascist makes control the be-all and end-all of government.

Originally posted by Cynic If people don't see that the government is doing something, they will go to extremes with communism... where the government has TOTAL responsibility for ALL of their welfare.

Thank you. I rest my case.

This may not be the present case in socialist countries, but perhaps the direction it appears to be heading. The exceptions would be in the areas where the government purses can temporarily no longer support services and seek to free resources through privatization.

The ultimate goal is total responsibility for everything. I see no way for socialism to deny that.

Originally posted by Snouter The Marxist influenced socialist objectives included a heavy. progressive income tax, abolition of the right to inheritance, you mean inheritance tax.
a central bank, You mean the federal reserve. That's just like the Bank of England isn't it? There is private banking in the USA in Britain is there not? Originally posted by Snouter abolition of private property, Property tax. I don't see that as abolition and other communist factors which are Originally posted by Snouter incorporated into today's so-called capitalist societies. You mean they are not completely libertarian. Not being libertarian does not mean being leftist, just as not being completely dictatorial makes a society anarchic.

Originally posted by Snouter What is strange is that the US policy seems to have intentionally set up the more radical forms of Communism through pro-Communist propaganda and abandoning the freedom fighters. HUH? Originally posted by Snouter For example, in China, the US could have easily helped the Chinese Nationalists defeat the Chinese Communists during the civil war there. It did try, and it lost. Originally posted by Snouter The US was present in the late 1940's and sympathized with the Chinese who had struggled against the Japanese invasion. For some strange and tragic reason, American propaganda promoted the Communists and American policy also allowed the Communists victory. What? That's rubbish. They supplied weapons to the nationalists, and deliberately broke the alliance between the Maoists and the Kuomintang by threatening to withdraw their support for the latter if it was continued.

If there is one tthing I don't accuse the USA of, it is spreading fascism.

Originally posted by Snouter The apparent unraveling of Communism in the world may be misleading. Let's look at the basic premises of Communism. Marxist ideology begins with aethism.
No, that is just a consequence of the basic premises. Marx saw religion as a propaganda tool for capitalism. So he opposed it.
Originally posted by Snouter The second premise is transformation by revolution. This revolution can be and has been non-violent as Fabians promoted years ago. It is free market capitalism that has permeated society. Just because we haven't privatised the street lamps, doesn't make us commies.
Originally posted by Snouter The third premise is control of all means of communication. Which I do not believe in as a socialist, neither does it exist, neither is your country socialist. The forth premise is collectivism such as labor unions. Originally posted by Snouter The fifth premise is controlling the economy and using it for political power such as the establishment of central banks like the Fed in America. The bank of England has existed since the 17th century. Was it created by marxists? Originally posted by Snouter The sixth premise is that Communism is an idelogy that reduces reality to one level and in reality ends up as the fantasy of a single dictator. that is the conversion to fascism. Originally posted by Snouter The seventh premise is that is a power theory. It provides the justification for attaining power and power once obtained is difficult to shake loose. Libertarians want to destroy power. Conservatives don't. You can concentrate power, disperse it, deferr it, but never destroy it.

The bank of England has existed since the 17th century. Was it created by marxists?

It was created by the house of Rothschild. However, there is another thread going that suggests that the Rothschilds are the ones ultimately responsible for commissioning the Communist Manifesto by Marx.

Libertarians want to destroy power. Conservatives don't. You can concentrate power, disperse it, deferr it, but never destroy it.

Anarchists wish to destroy power. Libertarians and conservatives both believe in decentralized power and small government.

Maybe we can start a thread to examine foreign policy worldwide immediatedly after WWII. I personally cannot believe all the madness happened by accident.

In 1946, when the US began withdrawing from the Chinese "theater," Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces still had the upper hand. The Chinese Communists received their arms from Russia who had received their arms from the USA. The US provided assistance to the Nationalists in air and naval transportation. General Marshall alledgedly attempted to integrate the Chinese government and armies among the Commies and Nationalists a few times and failed so an arms embargo was setup. This only hurt the Nationalists.

The evidence shows that US policy in China in 1946-48 or so was not one of containing Communism, but of helping it survive and getting them into government. It was clear in other countries that Commies entered into agreements with other parties for the sole purpose of gaining control of the government that way. The US government knew that fact very well.

The elites in America who spread misinformation included the Insitute of Pacific Relations, certain members in the US state department, and the mass media. These Communists sympathizers wrote that Chinese Cummunists were not "really" Communists.

Anyway, in Oct. 1947 the Chinese Communists issued a declaration that called for the overthrow of Chiang and was indirectly supported by American writers such as Owen Lattimore, Edgar Snow who wrote for the Saturday Evening Post which at theat time had the largest circulation of any magazine in the USA, Agnes Smedley, Harrison Forman, Gunther Stein, and others. Using writers and intellectuals to undermine the anti-Communist government successfully brainwashed people.