Everytime i listen to two individuals debate, from the right and the left. I am under the

avatar
(Edited)

Everytime i listen to two individuals debate, from the right and the left. I am under the impression that both of those individuals strongly believe that Socialism means to be given things and to receive things.



It is why i continuously hear the Leftist Lunatics say that the Elites of whom they define as being on the right of the Political Spectrum, are practicing a Socialism for the Elites, while the 99.9% of the population is under Capitalism, which is another word the Left, nor the Right can define.



Let me make this emphatically clear. Socialism DOES NOT MEAN TO BE GIVEN ANYTHING. Socialism is defined as Collective Control of the means of production, and/or in its purest form, Socialism means The Public Sector State Control of the Economy.



For the Public Sector State to Control the Economy has absolutely nothing to do with being given anything. In fact, once the collective takes control of the means of production. They now have the power to steal from you and to enslave you. Yes, i call it the slavery of the collective. Whether it is a worker class collective, a race collective or a gender collective is irrelavent, because the collective control of the means of production is Socialism period.



This Stupidity that Capitalism means Power, Profit and Greed is what we hear all of the time. Even the supposed rightwing movement defines Capitalism as such.. Take that idiot Vivek who has uttered the State Capitalism nonsense and attributed greed to Capitalism. However, that is very far from the truth. The Truth is that the real definition of Capitalism Which is Private Individual Control of the means of production/and in its purest form, Capitalism means Private Individual Control of his/her own Economy, can never ever mean Hierarchy, State or Oligarchy Controlling an economy through power, profit, greed and Control. That can only be ecomplished through Socialism or Feudalism.



Although Feudalism does lead to Socialism. As the King and his family that owns the means of production always needs outsiders who they can trust. It gets to the point where there is group ownership and control of the means of production. And group ownership of the means of production is no longer feudalism, but Socialism. People need to get their heads out of their asses. Capitalism is the only term in the Political Realm that means freedom of the individual to own things and to control his/her economy. Socialism means the exact opposite of that.



The reasons why the so called left and right never correctly define Socialism is precisely because if they did use the real dictionary definition of Socialism, people that watch Political Shows 24/7 will catch on and understand that the Republican Party is Socialist, and is merely the rightwing of the same Republican/Democrat Bird. While the Democrats are the leftwing of the Bird. And if they would define Capitalism in those political shows and theater. Everyone will immediately find out that the Republicans are not Capitalist as they falsely say, but Socialists. This i believe is the purpose of concealing the real definitons, and providing the people with pseudo ones. Because they are all grifters and liars, even many of your favorite youtubers are grifting. People who say the actual truth get Shadow Banned.
Everytime i listen to two individuals debate, from the right and the left. I am under the

someeofficial
0
0
0.000
7 comments
avatar

Well said. Back when I was a communist, I routinely got annoyed with people not being able to properly define communism or socialism, and it was part of the reason I left the left. Personally, I define capitalism as "the voluntary exchange of labour and property," though I am leaning more toward abandoning the word entirely in favour of another term for the free market, such as agorism or voluntaryism.

That being said, I disagree that the GOP is socialist; it is corporatist, which is closely-related, but not quite the same thing. Corporatism and socialism are two sides of the same big-government/big-business grift that undermines personal liberty and private property rights.

The last time I wrote on this subject was almost three months ago, but I will eventually resume.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

Hi @steampunkkaha.

Yes, i can see why you think the GOP isn't Socialist, essentially because they are pro Corporations. There is a big misunderstanding amongst those who proclaim to be on the right about what Corporations really are.

The word Corporation is the Italian form of Saying Syndicates, and Syndicates are Trade Unions. The Term Fascism is basically Syndicalism, and it stands for Trade Unionism. The Soviets called their Corporations Syndicates, and The Italian Fascist called Theirs Corporations.

That being said, Corporations are Public and Collectively owned. The Collective Control and Ownership of the means of production is the dictionary definiton for Socialism. Problems is, most Socialist do not understand what Socialism actually is.

Socialism is not worker ownership of the means of production. Worker ownership of the means of Production is Marxism, and Socialism Predates Marxism. Socialist Nations prior to Marx never included the Worker Element. Marx did that, and Socialism does not originate with Marx.

0
0
0.000
Reply
avatar

I am aware; I was in fact a Marxist, not a pre-Marxist socialist or anarcho-communist, much less a third positionist. The problem is the meaning of the word "corporation" in different languages, a "syndicate" in the [European] continental tradition, as you mentioned. I am referring to the English meaning of the word as the legal status of a business granted by the state, which is basically a distinction without a difference, I know. But yes, I am aware that corporations are, by definition, collectively owned, hence my own constant arguments with people who demand collective ownership always being "we already have that!" I think we can both agree that the GOP is a statist party regardless; they both are.

Marx's own definition of socialism was "state capitalism," in other words, a state monopoly on the means of production, and the state was to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, hence the worker ownership. His issue was with "private" monopolies, because he didn't really know how things worked (he also contradicted himself a lot, another reason I abandoned the ideology). Likewise, his own definition of "capitalism" was more in line with the English definition of "corporatism," and not a free market. The Marxist definitions appear to be what people are working with in the modern day, hence all the misunderstandings.

0
0
0.000
Reply