A moderate take on socialism and communism etc..

well.
i might have to agree.

 

No, you might not have people under those names lording over you, but there are those lording over you nonetheless. The modern feudalism deals with corporations and banks who use paid off politicians subservient to them to implement their will over the people. Neo-feudalism is a very accurate term, and is exactly as CFR archivist Carroll Quigley described it.

 

yeah, essentially that's what it is, but it's called capitalism....

 

You seem not to grasp that capitalism and communism are one and the same. In a capitalist society, monopolies may be created and maintained by powerful people by manipulating the market. In communism, the monopolies are maintained by law. Same book, different cover.

 

to whom are you speaking? everyone knows that communism is corrupt... mankind is still driven by greed. in order for communism to work, we would instead have to be driven by creativity and mutual respect. Communism is quite similar to capitalism because it is not true communism at all... it is totalitarianism.

 

I don't know. It seemed to me that you were advocating communism as being preferable to capitalism.

 

nope, was just trying to clarify what pressed meant by neo-feudalism

 

Yes, the monied system is the matrix. Period. It's an unnatural system we see as normal because it's all we've ever known. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism, socialism or communism. Communism was created as the antithesis to capitalism in the dialectic by the same big banks which print the money today. So what we have today isn't pure capitalism, but rather socialism, which is the synthesis (or outcome) in the thesis/antithesis of capitalism/communism. Under a capitalist system, individuality and personal freedom can be maintained. Socialism is based around collectivism, where all individualism is relinquished for the "greater good" of the state. So we have long been on the move away from free-market capitalism and are moving in the direction of "third way" communitarianism, where everything is managed by the state which is under the control of the banks and multinational corporations.

 

exactly, and now we've taken the red pill and can see the system for what it is. evolution is a slow process...

 

we have socialism? i dont think so. where is the communal ownership of the means of production? also, socialism doesnt seek to take away all individuality for the sake of the state; maybe the deranged versions of "socialism" we've seen in the 20th century have, but to put it quite simply, these states were not socialist in the slightest. Also, in capitalism, i would argue that you do not have individualism because there is clearly a status quo that we must fulfill in order to survive. how can we be individuals if we all have to go to state sponsored school, and be employed by wage slavers?

 

Yes, it is socialism. The only difference today is that the corporations run the state versus the other way around. The outcome is exactly the same. Regardless of what you choose to call it, it's a collectivist agenda. We are seeing more and more power centralized in the hands of the state while personal freedoms are being squashed. Call it fascism or call it socialism. I see no difference between the two. The problem with most people who call themselves socialists and claim to embrace socialism is that they see it in a utopic light. It was never intended to be utopian, that was merely how it was sold to the people. Marx was employed by the Rothschilds to promote what was written in the previous century by Adam Weishaupt.

 

collectivist in the authoritarian sense maybe, but why would the centralized power of the state be printing money in the first place if they have a collectivist agenda?

yes yes ive heard the whole 'Illuminati used Marx to promote their ideals" theory many times, but im not going to buy into that. even if Marx was hired by them as you say, that doesn't demean socialism as a movement because Marx simply isnt the entire socialist movement. As for seeing socialism in the utopic sense, i certainly dont. i dont believe in a "perfect world", i simply believe in the most sensible way of organization and management of labor, needs, and production, which to me at least is socialism.

 

Even though i can see where you are coming from, we as the working class are defenitly not in socialism. Even in the transitional sense that you previously put it on the last page. Yes, if you were looking at each corporation as a seperate individual, and our society broke down no further than that, then maybe you could call what we have socialism. But this is not the case. The two percent of our population that generally makes these money monging-earth destroying-civilization enslaving decisions, are not in the least spoken from the majority working class. By our choice nor our will. Just in favor of the corporate leaders, who are well above our ranking economically. especially in the united states, where the average CEO makes well over 400 times the amount of the average employee. Where even in OTHER capitalist countries they may just make 13-20 times the amount. These decisions are not in the least made by the workers. Just as Marx said, it is a struggle between the borgeousie and the proletariat.

And if marx was just trying to upsell the new world order then how come all the marxist societies have fallen, yet we still have a new world order trying to make its way to the top?

The new world order will be nothing but a universal currency. This will come to exist soon enough. Whoever it is overlooking and controlling this universal currency will be the ones controlling the world. Especially if we are still under capitalism. The corporations will run the world.

Abolish capitalism. Abolish currency. Abolish shit.

:hat:

But don't forget to go buy big red and white striped hats.


and sulking m&ms.

 

But Marx was employed by "rich capitalists" himself. You see, you have bought into the propaganda version of what socialism is, failing to understand the forces behind it or its role in the Hegelian dialectic scheme. When you have a dominant minority lording over a dumbed-down public, that's socialism. It's nothing more than monopoly capitalism for the rich, by the rich. That is what we have today as more and more power is being consolidated by the state. You might not want to call it socialism, but that is what it is.

Almost everything outlined in the Communist Manifesto has become a reality. The ruling elite LOVE socialism because it puts more control into their hands.

 

The ideology certainly hasn't fallen, it simply went underground and uses such names as "democractic socialism" and such. World socialism is the goal of the New World Order elite. These people are not capitalists, because when a person wants full power, they must abolish all competition.

 

Ok, so what your saying is that our idea of 'socialism' is just a skewed idea of the real values? Somewhat like the idea that religion is the only thing that gives people moral values (when religion is generally opposite to moral)?

Well looking away from the actual word 'socialism', what word would you call our idea of an economy run by the working class (lets put it short and simple that way), if the true meaning is something much different?

And as far as marx goes, either way we don't need to look at his reasons for stating what he stated. Or the original purpose of the ideoligy. What matters is the idea and the context it is used. If marxism was used truthfully in the direct way he put it, with nothing behind the scenes, then it would not be a tool used for the new world order.

It would be like me telling christians to stop beleiving because the roman catholic church murdered civilizations in the name of god, who was really just a tool for governmental power.

But is christianity still being used as a tool for governmental power? or is it being seen in a new light? (Perhaps it is, but perhaps not) Even though what i just mentioned is subjective... it gets to the general area of my point.

 

What your saying is very debatable though. Based on perspective and the way you look at it. Again, i see where your coming from, but how do you know these democratic socialists are trying to promote the new world order, and are not ordinary people who would appreciate the system from its widely known meaning as you would put it. Either way, i dont want this turning into an argument about why i shouldn't want socialism. I wouldn't really call myself a socialist anyway. I'm just debating the topic on hand.

 

i could easily say that you have bought in to the propaganda version that socialism is the goal of the NWO, but thats not the case, because you have clearly done your research and believe this for yourself. i havent "bought into" anything, im a socialist because i seek to establish freedom and collectivity, (which doesnt destroy individuality) unlike the "socialism" you describe. and i do understand the "forces" behind socialism, there are plenty others besides Marx.

when you have a dominant minorty ruling over a a dumb majority, thats the state! thats the structure of civilization since the beginning of it all! so we have had socialism since the end of hunter-gatherer society?

social democracy can hardly be considered similar to revolutionary politics, because they take two completely different paths to their so called alike goals. IMO, social democracy as we know it today (third way, welfare state such as in the EU) is the precursor to fascist totalitarianism.

while its true that a lot of Marxist parties became "democratic socialist" after 1991, you can hardly come to conclude that all socialist/communist parties are part of the NWO elite.






.

 

I've come to realize politics is almost as useless to argue about as religion. I would like to say i have officially retired from political arguements.

With that said,
dont forget your copy of backyard sluts #19, piggy addition.iggy:


:cheers2: Lets all just live.

 

See, that's the biggest lie right there because under a socialist system the people run and own NOTHING. The state runs and controls everything. There is no private ownership of anything because the state owns it all. It's always been sold as being for the worker's rights and all that stuff that sounds really nice on the surface, until you see what's really behind it. So yes, what the average person believes socialism to be is much different from what it really is and the ends it seeks to achieve.