The Goal Of Socialism

Socialism is just communism....... but for slow learners.

😂

:0)

Christians go to Heaven
Socialists go to Communism

"I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
~Norman Thomas

Yup

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/02/blog-posting/no-evidence-norman-thomas-quote-democrats-embracin/

Haha, truth regardless.

Not even close.

Progressives run the party progressives are committed Marxist Socialists. So yup true.

Joe Biden runs the party, and he is an establishment liberal.

Not since he was elected. That’s what he told the stupid and foolish. He a frontman for far left progressives and has only emplaced radical leftists in positions of power.

You mean SELECTED

Whoa, are we talking literal Marxists and communists? How come all of my comrades disapprove of the Biden administration and see him failing to deliver on promises?

Because your “comrades” are insane and just want their student debt paid by taxpayers.

Student debt? You mean that guv'mint program that "helped" students by loaning them money which then prompted schools to raise their tuitions? That's a done deal: students get to pay off their student debt until they are done so that college administrators and professors can make The Big Bucks! GTA's (graduate teaching assistants), however, are still as screwed as always, I knew one.

Actually we just want the abolition of the capitalist system and full communism in its place.

Your commrades huh?

And if they all disapproved of him then why'd they all (aledgedly) vote for him?

Voting out of spite, and somehow they think they're not the real danger to democracy 🙄

If any communists voted Biden it was for harm reduction to remove Trump from office.

Why not just go to a fully Communist country. North Korea is fully communist. I’m sure there’s others that would be to your preferred political system.

Go to a fully Communist country? How's that working out for North Korea? Have you seen the NASA photos?

How is DPRK fully communist? I would accept socialist or state capitalist to describe their system but they have not established communism. You should read more about what the Soviets were trying to accomplish but didn’t.

Joe Biden doesn't even tie his own shoes, Joe Biden can't even string together a coherent sentence half the time, Joe Biden doesn't run anything

Obviously he has advisors and so on that help him articulate policy, but that policy doesn’t emulate socialism or communism in the slightest.

And as my original quote stated why would they have to identify themselves as socialist when they've already adopted all their platforms and ideas?

🤣🤣🤣 he's still relying on "fact checkers"

Hahaha! Guess I should just trust the endless stream of misinformation from Imgflip conservatives, huh?

Go ahead, provide a source for this alleged quote.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/nov/02/blog-posting/no-evidence-norman-thomas-quote-democrats-embracin/

Norman Peterson has a question for Norman Thomas

Very true

Correct

Yeah, and?

Yeah, because capitalism is doing them so much better. LOL

Oh look, someone has also graffitied 'socialism' on the fascist boot.

I mean, the Nazis were socialists so....

No, they weren't.

Like I said, they were.

Why did the Nazis ban all socialist publications? Why were labor unions attacked and banned? Why were the communists put into the concentration camps? Why did the fascist paramilitary organizations, including the SS, fight communists and leftists in the streets, while the first illegal anti-fascist action groups were being created by the Communist Party with the ideological help of the Communist International? Why did the anarcho-syndicalists devise a plot to kill Hitler?

In fact, why was the Comintern so opposed to fascism that they came up with “social fascism” to accuse social Democrats unwilling to fight the Nazi regime of being no worse than the Nazis themselves?

Did you even read my articles?

Wait nevermind. I can tell you didn't.
Please, go read them.

I just finished the second one. Very, very bad history from a discredited academic (Watson). The quotes from “private conversations with Hitler” come from Hermann Rauschning‘s 1940 book Hitler Speaks, which is also considered a discredited work. One historian notes that Rauschning appears to intwine his opinions with his recounted conversations.

What is amusing, is that Hermann Rauschning was a German conservative who initially supported Hitler. Which isn’t surprising — burghers (German bourgeoisie) and conservative elites sought to restore their institutions and dismantle the Weimar Republic, which defeated what they had loved. They did this by voting for and collaborating with the Nazis. Hitler’s administration even initially consisted of members from the conservative German National People’s Party before outlawing other parties.

The Russian and German communists didn’t see social Democrats as worse than the Nazis, they eventually were able to recruit SDP members into the anti-fascist action groups. They were fighting the Nazis, not social Democrats. They initially thought social Democrats were passive toward the Nazis, but tried to abandon this position to gain more support for the anti-fascist cause.

Hitler’s national socialism blended social awareness with extreme nationalism. He sought support for the Party by uniting behind the German identity, and the nationalist Volk movement that preceded him. Even in that questionable quote, Hitler railed against the pro-democratic position of the Marxists, which is consistent with the Nazi and fascist doctrine. They hated democracy, and liberalism, and communism.

Oh yeah. You know that question I asked you earlier about what would happen if somebody refused to collect device farmland? I've got the answer. It's called the Holomodor, or Stalin's secret genocide. When the people of the Ukrainian SSR refused to surrender and collectivize their grain, Stalin sent hordes of secret police and military officials to seize the grain, and keep it from the Ukrainian people. Millions starved and died.

Venezuela is not communist? Yeah, right. They are socialist, and under that umbrella ideology they are much more similar to the Communist Branch than to the National Socialist branch. So it's safe to say that they are communist.

Also, while we're on the topic, they held out for 10 days? pfft. I've waited in lines at the DMV longer than that. Oh yeah, this is going to bring us into the consequences of collectivization. Whenever the government gets involved in something, and/or something is collectivized, that industry or service ends up being a spectacular failure. Take canada, for instance. While in the us, a capitalist country, somebody could get an ultrasound in a few hours, or at most one or two days, in Canada the doctors are usually booked out, and do not work on weekends. Never mind the quality of the carrier will be receiving, as without an incentive (money) to do a good job, the only think they have to appeal to is the government, I.E. the entity that collectivized them in the first place.

I'm not saying you are a Leninist. I'm saying you sound very similar.

How are they not? After all, your proposed method of organization seems to be soviets, or workers associations/unions. Everybody can't be on the council, that would be a democracy. You can't have some people pick others to represent them, that would be a republic. You can't have leader for life, that would be monarchy. There is no way that you can propose this while still being consistent.

Also, going back to your earlier comment about Marxism and anarchism, that makes no sense. How are the proletariat supposed to "aid themselves"? They're certainly not doing it, that would be capitalism.

Globalization is not involved with capitalism.

Anyway, I'm only certain that you sound very similar to marxists, not that you are one.

Anarchy , literally, means the absence of government. Those organizations you described would still be a form of government. Every club is not a government, is it does not hold the social power to pass laws restrict or free its citizens or establish relations with other countries. Also, what's to stop one of these groups from asserting control over another, and eventually taking over the country and asserting a dictatorship? Nothing. That has always been the case for any sort of communist regime. Be at the Soviet Union, Venezuela or anywhere else. Speaking of the Soviet Union, your ideals also sort of sound like Leninism.

This is my final response to you, because you are clueless about every topic or ideology you touch on.

You just said a club has none of those capabilities, but what makes you think organizations tasked with managing production and consumption on a local level are at all interested in establishing laws and restrictions on people? Anarchists seek to abolish coercive laws, and police and prisons and all forms of oppression and punishment. We don't want to seek permission from authority or have our destinies and movements determined by a system forced upon us.

Seeing as the masses have established anarchism, toppling authoritarian governments and bosses in the process, I see no problem in defending an anarchist society when reactionaries attempt to restore private property or other hierarchical institutions. A species' success is determined by its ability to organize effectively. There would still be militia groups and defense organizations to defend free people. The anarchist Makhnovists (formerly Ukraine) were successful in defeating the White Army and reclaiming their capital in 10 days. It's not like anarchists are powerless.

Venezuela is not communist, but they have a majority left-wing government.

Lenin contributed the vanguard party to Marxist thought, a concept that the revolution be protected by a one-party state. Lenin was an orthodox Marxist who sought to restore capitalism in the USSR through the NEP because Russia (under the Tsar) had not 'fully developed' the industrial forces of the nation. I'm literally talking about unions and associations managing economic affairs, and when some members of the Bolshevik Party proposed this through the Workers Opposition, Lenin vehemently opposed it, and wanted the state to direct all economic affairs. Absolutely nothing I am talking about sounds like Leninism. Anarchist methods of organization are also nothing like democratic centralism, and those reasons should be obvious.

*sigh*
You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying they are communists. They never were when Hitler thought of the ideology of national socialism, he was inspired by Marx, but he did not completely copy Marx. As he said, they thought politics meant talking and writing. They were pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what those peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun".

And he wasn't nationalistic. He was imperialistic. Sure that involved some element of national pride, but to say that he was anything like most moderate nationalists (such as me) is absurd. In fact, if you actually look at what he wanted to do, establish a global empire you would see that he is more of a globalist than a nationalist. He also had some very racially charged beliefs, which are usually stirred up by the left. He believed in eugenics, as did the founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger.

And about anarcho communism, it can't exist. How is the wealth going to be redistributed? Who is going to enforce that redistribution?

Okay, saying Hitler “wasn’t nationalistic” completely annihilates your credibility. That is unbelievable. Nationalism is “identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.” Hitler sought to expand Germany and exclude Jews and leftists and other groups from the plan, as they were not “purely German”. This is why people are f**king terrified when the mainstream right thinks it’s cool to embrace nationalism, almost 100 years later.

I don’t know why you think the left has anything to do with racial hierarchy. The Soviets liked to point out the segregationist policies of the U.S. as a disgrace. The left tends to be more inclusive and care about disadvantaged populations, especially the historical displaced proletariat, which tended to be indigenous people (after the European enclosures). The history of capitalism is the history of oppressing and enslaving black and indigenous people and building institutions to maintain a white majority and a system favorable to the white race. Indigenous people have resisted capitalism in Asia, Latin America and Africa through left wing movements and politics.

Funny you mention globalism, as that is closely associated with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Anarcho-communism starts with social revolution and the expropriation of private property and businesses. In the absence of government and capitalism, workers build decentralized associations that interact horizontally to produce and distribute according to need. Anarcho-syndicalists believe in unionizing their workplaces, electing workers to labor councils to direct their work, have federations manage the total production and the unions to determine needs and allocate goods accordingly.

The Nazis on the moon were jewish, man! Don't you see it?!
(This is a parody. I don't actually believe any of that.)

Globalism is a word. It's in the dictionary. It's not a conspiracy theory of any sort. It's actually a very influential, albeit wrong, ideology.

"Workers build decentralized associations"

That's still a form of government. Also, did you say you weren't a marxist? Because that sounds pretty similar to what the marxists say.

Who openly calls themselves a globalist? Who wrote the founding texts about globalism? Globalization is real and ideological, but that is associated with neoliberalism and capitalism.

You said I affiliate myself with the Marxist movement, which I don't, I said I'm involved with anarchists. Your accusation is absurd. Were ancient guilds and clans all their own governments? Is every trade union, every club or association in the world its own government, or a form of such? Governments tend to consolidate centralized power and employ state violence to uphold its institutions and quell popular resistance. Governments assert hierarchy.

Under anarchism, hierarchical relations are abolished, meaning class rule is no more, nobody has rights or privileges over another person. Everyone is equal. All of the purposes of the state are no more. If someone is placed into a position where they have authority over another, such as, directing work or being a student to a teacher, or considering the thoughts of a speaker, accepting the results of science and academia, such is done on a voluntary and/or democratic basis.

The institutions (associations) that exist after the state have no purpose of upholding elite privileges or upholding a ruling class. They are all to promote well-being for all, and guarantee to everyone that their human needs be met and fulfilled. Moreover, they consist of everyone and rely on their participation. Cooperation and the avoidance of competition are the natural tendency of species.

The Marxists want free associations of producers to organize the economic affairs in society, but anarchists and Marxists disagree about how to arrive at that. Marxists believe in a transition state to transfer peaked capitalism to socialism then arrive at communism, when the political state withers away. Anarchists reject a state's role in aiding the proletariat at all.

Oh, good. This conversation was going nowhere anyway. What's funny though is that you claim I'm the clueless one.

If they were tasked with managing production, it would have to establish laws and restrictions, otherwise they couldn't function as intended. Suppose somebody did not want to collect device. How would they enforce that? With no laws, and no restrictions, the only way to do that would be to have violent seizure of his property. Which means that your "anarcho communism" is essentially mob rule. And, although I could be wrong, I'm fairly certain you don't want that. There are a few more things to think about. Suppose somebody wanted to leave his or her small commune, and go visit someplace else. He would be leaving his commune, and going to another, which would entail cooperation between the two communes, with a mutual understanding that he is not staging a military invasion, but merely visiting relatives. The logistics of true anarchy just are not feasible. I mean, what would you make of the uneven distribution of people between a place like New York City and rural Nebraska? New York City, obviously, has very little to no farmland, whilst rural Nebraska has plenty. Would you say that the nearly 24 million in New York City be rounded up and forcibly move somewhere else? If yes, who would be doing that rounding up? A government. And if not, who would facilitate the trade between New York's commune and Nebraska's? If this is a communist society, then it's not individuals, it's the government! Also, what would you make of places like Libya, Chad, or Algeria? They have very little to no farmland, so they would have to trade with other communes. Which, again, in the absence of private venture capitalism, means to governments trading with one another. There is no way that you can make this work while still being consistent with the professed ideology of "anarco-communism".

Of course, that's not even brushing up on the bloody history of Communism in general. Communism killed far, far more people than National Socialism ever did. I mean, just Stalin and now alone killed 60 million people, whereas Hitler killed 20 million. That's nearly triple Hitler's count. That's not even counting the countless other millions in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Venezuela, North Korea, and other communist/socialist nations. That is also not counting the millions who did not die but still led miserable lives in general.

Actually, it really doesn't. There are a few ways to define nationalism. One being National pride, two being imperialistic (Hitler's variety, not akin to anything we see today), and three, the belief that the world is best governed by nation states as opposed to a collectivist world government. He was nationalist to some degree but not anything like what nationalism means today. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that. However if you actually looked at what he believed, he wanted all German PEOPLE United - that would also include Austria, Switzerland, parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. That was more race based the nationality based. Sure, he wanted them all under one flag, his German flag, but the reason he wanted to do that was because, again, of their race.

Mhmm...
And you still think you're lecturing me...

Yes, I'm sure the Soviets did like to do that... While they were simultaneously dividing based on class. Or nationality. Or political ideology. The Soviets were no better than the segregationist Democrats in power at the times in the United States. The left does not care. They just want to exploit. IE, pander. Vote for me, and your life will have no more hardship! The left has been dividing people on race and class for a long time. Honestly, I could write a whole book on this but I think that about sums up my point. By embrace nationalism... You mean have pride in coming from the greatest nation on earth? Yes. Then I guess I do embrace nationalism. And yes, America is indisputably the greatest nation on earth. You Don't see people trying to illegally immigrate to Guatemala, do you? Of course I'm not a nazi. I would never be, as, like I keep saying, they are socialists. The history of capitalism is one of a person? How so? Because last I checked it was also capitalists who fought a bloody civil war to end slavery, it was capitalists who industrialized in the north, thus eliminating the need for slavery, it was capitalists who donated money or their time to abolitionist causes, it was capitalist who started philanthropical organizations. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Yes, they've resisted capitalism. And how that work out for them? Oh right, millions of them are now dead. Executed or starved to death by socialist political regimes..

"I could write a whole book on this". Thank you, I haven't laughed that hard in years.

So you support a political ideology that was responsible for more persecution, oppression and death than any other in the 20th century, far more (approximately 5 times more) than even the nazis?

Well the Nazis were socialist too so they should be included...

No they weren't.

Yes, observe our conversation which is basically me lecturing him.

Oh, I have been.

Proof?
Also, see my below conversation with (LOL) TriggeringConservatives.

How much do you know about the Nazis?

Would you be able to answer the following question?

Did the Nazis

a) seek to control the means of production and redistribute wealth to build a utopian society?

Or

b) safeguard a social and racial hierarchy, denying rights to those outside their privileged circle?

A) yes and no. Well they controlled the means of production, instituting price controls, and stating what would be produced, in what quantity, and so forth, they did not seek to build a utopian society but rather a global fascist-socialist empire. As I have already stated before, they were not communist but socialist. Socialism is an umbrella ideology, communism, fascism (or national socialism), Democratic socialism, and the rest are all subcategories of that ideology.

B) yes - much like the Communists in the Soviet Union. Or China. Or Vietnam. Or Cambodia. Or Venezuela. Or pretty much any other socialist nation. So to say that this is unique to the National socialists of Germany is profoundly untrue.

But they weren't communist.

Not exactly, but Hitler himself said National Socialism was based on Marx.

He said the exact f**king opposite

Ehh no

“Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to
do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not."

In Mein Kampf, Hitler equates Marxism with “Jewry” and warns that Marxism would lead to “chaos” and mean the “end” of man.

Inspired BY Marx.
It is possible to disagree on certain aspects of a philosophy while still adopting that philosophy in general.

“Who knows if I would have ever become absorbed in the doctrines and character of Marxism if my life had not simply rubbed my nose in it!”

Hitler reflects on finally hearing the Marxist viewpoint and disagreeing with it entirely:

“I buried myself in the teachings of Marxism and gave calm, clear consideration to the work of the Jewish people. Fate itself gave me my answer. The Jewish doctrine of Marxism denies the noble goal of Nature and sets mass and dead weight of numbers in place of the eternal privilege of strength and power. It denies the value of personality in man, disputes the significance of nation and race, and deprives mankind of the essentials of its survival and civilization.”

Just admit you’re making shit up and don’t know what you’re talking about.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

Try again. Like I said, he didn't 100% agree with Marx, but he was definitely inspired.

So Hitler’s own words prove you wrong, yet you want to still send me articles authored by right-wingers with an agenda, desperately trying to paint Nazis as socialist because they instituted *shuffles notes* price controls? Countless capitalist countries have done the same. It doesn’t make them socialist. Also, Marxists and communists don’t tend to be reformists, they are revolutionaries. What the f**k do we want with price controls? We want to abolish private property and assume the means of production.

Mises is a joke, because its authors can’t decide whether Nazis were socialist or Keynesian. Capitalists eagerly cooperated with the Nazi regime. And I have heard numerous right-libertarians tell me that the United States IS a socialist country, when, obviously, it is not.

Fascism as described by Mussolini is the “merger of corporate and government power”. Obviously fascism is not the same philosophy as socialism, though. Fascists wanted class collaboration, while Marxists and communists want a proletarian dictatorship and ultimately the abolition of class.

Keep in mind those articles also reference Hitler's words, and the words of other prominent Nazis.

"We"
Okay, that tells me that you identify with the Marxist movement. So how is what you're accusing me of doing, trying to disassociate with the Nazis, any different than what you were doing? Hint: it's not. If you actually looked at their policies, values, and actions, you would see that they were very left wing. The National Socialist party was a revolutionary party, just as the communists were. They weren't communists, but they were similar.

But we're not talking about Mussolini, are we? ;)

It's a form of Socialism - just as communism, "democratic socialism", and such are all forms of the greater ideology of socialism. Like I said, they aren't marxists, but they are similar.

I’m not trying to associate you with Hitler by calling the Nazis right-wing. When I say the Nazis are on the right, I mean far, far right. The GOP has been pushed to the right, to the point where they have emboldened nationalists, and they do have some support among national socialists and fascists, but the Republican platform alone is not fascist.

What about the national socialists was revolutionary? Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg. The Nazis never achieved a majority vote, nor was there really a revolution, but the right enjoyed a resurgence after discontent following the November revolution (Weimar Republic) that had empowered the left.

I’m not quite aligned with the Marxist movement, but more so the anarchist communist movement.

And I'm not trying to associate you with the Nazis either. But I'm going to see history for what it is. And the Nazis were definitely on the left. They weren't communist they weren't true Marxists (although he did take inspiration from Marx), but they were undoubtedly socialist. He wanted to create a global fascist socialist empire.

Also, I guarantee you didn’t read or probably even understand the articles you sent. Lmao

Mhmmm...

Point being the left differentiates between Hitler and communism, and they supposedly hate Hitler, yet they idolize communism, which has a far higher body count than Hitler.

Capitalists differentiate capitalism from communism, but capitalism has a far higher body count that communism.

Your logic there.

That's not actually what he was saying, but if you would like to think that, go right ahead.

That is true...