Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It can work if only you could remove greed, sloth and envy...
Until then it is just a dream of delusional people thinking they discovered the cure...
Socialism can only work in a free market. It MUST compete with individual intiative to work, that is why all the elites that run our economy hate the free market.
Did you know that the FEDERAL RESERVE is a monopoly and opposed to the free market?
Examples of successful socialism in a free market;
Credit union - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers'_co-operative
National Cooperative Business Association - Wikipedia
Cooperative - Wikipedia
Mutual organization - Wikipedia
Friendly society - Wikipedia
Food cooperative - Wikipedia
Agricultural cooperative - Wikipedia
Ocean Spray (cooperative) - Wikipedia
Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
United Egg Producers - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_O'Lakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_Natural_Growers
List of energy cooperatives - Wikipedia
That type of "mixed" economy the elites practice they call "capitalism" but is, in reality, something called dirgism.
Dirigisme - Wikipedia
This is something used to oppress the lower classes, maintain tight control on a corrupt society and enrich the oligarchy.
Cooperatives are not socialism. You need to governmental involvement in means of production for socialism to be considered, and you need the whole class argument thing to be involved if you want to imply marxism (of which socialism is the method of removing class struggle)
A bunch of people banding together to sell oranges may be cronyism, but it isn't socialism.
If we are going to quibble over definitions, there will be no debate then.
Under this definition;
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Everything I just listed IS socialism. Furthermore, socialism DOES NOT need government and IT CAN exist in a free market.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
Socialism can only work in a free market. It MUST compete with individual intiative to work, that is why all the elites that run our economy hate the free market.
Did you know that the FEDERAL RESERVE is a monopoly and opposed to the free market?
Examples of successful socialism in a free market;
Credit union - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers'_co-operative
National Cooperative Business Association - Wikipedia
Cooperative - Wikipedia
Mutual organization - Wikipedia
Friendly society - Wikipedia
Food cooperative - Wikipedia
Agricultural cooperative - Wikipedia
Ocean Spray (cooperative) - Wikipedia
Sunkist Growers, Incorporated - Wikipedia
United Egg Producers - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_O'Lakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida's_Natural_Growers
List of energy cooperatives - Wikipedia
That type of "mixed" economy the elites practice they call "capitalism" but is, in reality, something called dirgism.
Dirigisme - Wikipedia
This is something used to oppress the lower classes, maintain tight control on a corrupt society and enrich the oligarchy.
Cooperatives are not socialism. You need to governmental involvement in means of production for socialism to be considered, and you need the whole class argument thing to be involved if you want to imply marxism (of which socialism is the method of removing class struggle)
A bunch of people banding together to sell oranges may be cronyism, but it isn't socialism.
If we are going to quibble over definitions, there will be no debate then.
Under this definition;
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Everything I just listed IS socialism. Furthermore, socialism DOES NOT need government and IT CAN exist in a free market.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
Cooperatives are not socialism. You need to governmental involvement in means of production for socialism to be considered, and you need the whole class argument thing to be involved if you want to imply marxism (of which socialism is the method of removing class struggle)
A bunch of people banding together to sell oranges may be cronyism, but it isn't socialism.
If we are going to quibble over definitions, there will be no debate then.
Under this definition;
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Everything I just listed IS socialism. Furthermore, socialism DOES NOT need government and IT CAN exist in a free market.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
How could they screw up socialism so badly?This is the most incompetent government in the Western hemisphere.
This would be unbelievable if we hadn't seen this from the statists over and over and over again in the Emerging Markets.
View attachment 252094
View attachment 252095
View attachment 252096
Venezuela’s Economic Collapse Explained in Nine Charts
They didn't.
The best way to describe socialist/marxist application is to find one of those Sci Fi episodes where the protagonists are stuck in a time loop, and someone is trying to manipulate the time loop to get some result, but can never quite get it right. Stargate SG-1 and Star Trek Voyager have episodes using this plot device.
To me marxism has the same problem, people try over an over to get it right, but they never quite can make it work.
It can work if only you could remove greed, sloth and envy...
Until then it is just a dream of delusional people thinking they discovered the cure...
If we are going to quibble over definitions, there will be no debate then.
Under this definition;
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Everything I just listed IS socialism. Furthermore, socialism DOES NOT need government and IT CAN exist in a free market.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
I listen, I just don't agree with you. Drexler and Eichart may have invented National Socialism, but Hitler took it to the form we know today.
Marx is the basis of the socialism we know of today, and the concept we discuss today.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
I listen, I just don't agree with you. Drexler and Eichart may have invented National Socialism, but Hitler took it to the form we know today.
Marx is the basis of the socialism we know of today, and the concept we discuss today.
And you do know who funded Marx?
Frankly, I think you are ignoring me. Over and over you ignore what I am telling you. The Deep State is USING SOCIALISM, just like it uses the drug war, or terrorism or anything else.
BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING STILL. ARE YOU?
Antony Sutton
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
"The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book."
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
Did you even read that first post I made after Toro's?
Cooperatives are not socialism. You need to governmental involvement in means of production for socialism to be considered, and you need the whole class argument thing to be involved if you want to imply marxism (of which socialism is the method of removing class struggle)
A bunch of people banding together to sell oranges may be cronyism, but it isn't socialism.
If we are going to quibble over definitions, there will be no debate then.
Under this definition;
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Everything I just listed IS socialism. Furthermore, socialism DOES NOT need government and IT CAN exist in a free market.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
I listen, I just don't agree with you. Drexler and Eichart may have invented National Socialism, but Hitler took it to the form we know today.
Marx is the basis of the socialism we know of today, and the concept we discuss today.
And you do know who funded Marx?
Frankly, I think you are ignoring me. Over and over you ignore what I am telling you. The Deep State is USING SOCIALISM, just like it uses the drug war, or terrorism or anything else.
BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING STILL. ARE YOU?
Antony Sutton
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
"The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book."
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
Did you even read that first post I made after Toro's?
Sorry, i don't go for long rambling posts. Short and simple is my motto.
You don't have to be verbose to get across complex concepts.
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
I listen, I just don't agree with you. Drexler and Eichart may have invented National Socialism, but Hitler took it to the form we know today.
Marx is the basis of the socialism we know of today, and the concept we discuss today.
And you do know who funded Marx?
Frankly, I think you are ignoring me. Over and over you ignore what I am telling you. The Deep State is USING SOCIALISM, just like it uses the drug war, or terrorism or anything else.
BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING STILL. ARE YOU?
Antony Sutton
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
"The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book."
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
Did you even read that first post I made after Toro's?
Sorry, i don't go for long rambling posts. Short and simple is my motto.
You don't have to be verbose to get across complex concepts.
Yeah, that is why I know more than you. I get my knowledge from reading, you get yours from the TEE VEE.
Sorry information is too much for you to handle.
If we are going to quibble over definitions, there will be no debate then.
Under this definition;
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Everything I just listed IS socialism. Furthermore, socialism DOES NOT need government and IT CAN exist in a free market.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
But you are just flat out wrong. You can keep saying over and over, that socialism doesn't require government, but that just makes you wrong.
You can list all the co-ops you want, and all the mutual organizations you want.... that's fine.
The fact is 99% of the economy is not run by co-ops and mutual orgs. And those people are not going to give up their companies and businesses, and all their income and property, for the sake of your socialism.
This is why every socialist country, requires government to make socialism happen. Because it does not happen otherwise.
Besides that, I don't even think most of these co-ops are any different from regular corporations. I think a bunch of these co-ops are just using that term 'co-op' to convince mindless lemmings that they are not evil Capitalists.
A perfect example to me is Ace Hardware. Supposedly Ace Hardware is a co-op. But how is it really different than any other franchise system? People have to buy $5,000 in shares of Ace Hardware. The corp deals with advertisement, and promotions. Sets up supply chains.
You know what that sounds like? Wendy's or McDonald's. Then you look at the money, and Ace is raking in over $5 Billion a year.
What's the difference between this co-op and another franchise system? Nothing, except you don't know how much the CEO is making. Because you don't know, you can't get all hyped up on greedy and envy over it.
You have no idea how many hundreds of millions, or even billions the CEO is getting compensated, because it's not a public corporation. We know the CEO has tons of shares in the Co-ops, and given it's massive income, those shares are likely worth a ton of money.
Even so, let's pretend that there is something magically different about co-ops. From what I've read, co-ops create 2 million jobs in the entire country. Great, what about the other 300 million people that need jobs? According to the stats, Walmart by itself, employs 2 million people. So let's think that through. One single non-co-op, is employing as many people, as all the co-ops in the entire country combined.
Co-ops are not a replacement to the standard capitalist system.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
But you are just flat out wrong. You can keep saying over and over, that socialism doesn't require government, but that just makes you wrong.
You can list all the co-ops you want, and all the mutual organizations you want.... that's fine.
The fact is 99% of the economy is not run by co-ops and mutual orgs. And those people are not going to give up their companies and businesses, and all their income and property, for the sake of your socialism.
This is why every socialist country, requires government to make socialism happen. Because it does not happen otherwise.
Besides that, I don't even think most of these co-ops are any different from regular corporations. I think a bunch of these co-ops are just using that term 'co-op' to convince mindless lemmings that they are not evil Capitalists.
A perfect example to me is Ace Hardware. Supposedly Ace Hardware is a co-op. But how is it really different than any other franchise system? People have to buy $5,000 in shares of Ace Hardware. The corp deals with advertisement, and promotions. Sets up supply chains.
You know what that sounds like? Wendy's or McDonald's. Then you look at the money, and Ace is raking in over $5 Billion a year.
What's the difference between this co-op and another franchise system? Nothing, except you don't know how much the CEO is making. Because you don't know, you can't get all hyped up on greedy and envy over it.
You have no idea how many hundreds of millions, or even billions the CEO is getting compensated, because it's not a public corporation. We know the CEO has tons of shares in the Co-ops, and given it's massive income, those shares are likely worth a ton of money.
Even so, let's pretend that there is something magically different about co-ops. From what I've read, co-ops create 2 million jobs in the entire country. Great, what about the other 300 million people that need jobs? According to the stats, Walmart by itself, employs 2 million people. So let's think that through. One single non-co-op, is employing as many people, as all the co-ops in the entire country combined.
Co-ops are not a replacement to the standard capitalist system.
Well, unless you provide an alternate definition, I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I am a member of a food co-op and a credit union.
I can tell from your post, you aren't a member of either. It sounds to me like you have no idea what you are talking about. I DO KNOW, that because of lobbyists, the varying levels of government make it more difficult for mutual aid cooperatives to function in our society. This is not a mistake. The ACA screwed everyone over. It was good only for insurance companies and big pharma, it had no carve outs for cooperative health care.
You folks are acting all brainwashed.
I am going to quibble over the definition. A voluntary collective agreement is just a contract, it isn't socialism. There were collective organizations before Marx such as guilds, or even the collective security found in feudalism, but socialism as a modern construct came from Marx, and Marx was all about class struggle and the use of government to eliminate that class struggle.
Damn you ARE stubborn.
So it was MARX that called that FIRST INTERNATIONALE? And they all came running?
If you want to discuss the marxist/anarchist split we can go to another thread (actually not).
When people use socialism, they don't think of Florida orange growers or some hippie commune in the valley.
They think of government control of supply and demand.
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
But you are just flat out wrong. You can keep saying over and over, that socialism doesn't require government, but that just makes you wrong.
You can list all the co-ops you want, and all the mutual organizations you want.... that's fine.
The fact is 99% of the economy is not run by co-ops and mutual orgs. And those people are not going to give up their companies and businesses, and all their income and property, for the sake of your socialism.
This is why every socialist country, requires government to make socialism happen. Because it does not happen otherwise.
Besides that, I don't even think most of these co-ops are any different from regular corporations. I think a bunch of these co-ops are just using that term 'co-op' to convince mindless lemmings that they are not evil Capitalists.
A perfect example to me is Ace Hardware. Supposedly Ace Hardware is a co-op. But how is it really different than any other franchise system? People have to buy $5,000 in shares of Ace Hardware. The corp deals with advertisement, and promotions. Sets up supply chains.
You know what that sounds like? Wendy's or McDonald's. Then you look at the money, and Ace is raking in over $5 Billion a year.
What's the difference between this co-op and another franchise system? Nothing, except you don't know how much the CEO is making. Because you don't know, you can't get all hyped up on greedy and envy over it.
You have no idea how many hundreds of millions, or even billions the CEO is getting compensated, because it's not a public corporation. We know the CEO has tons of shares in the Co-ops, and given it's massive income, those shares are likely worth a ton of money.
Even so, let's pretend that there is something magically different about co-ops. From what I've read, co-ops create 2 million jobs in the entire country. Great, what about the other 300 million people that need jobs? According to the stats, Walmart by itself, employs 2 million people. So let's think that through. One single non-co-op, is employing as many people, as all the co-ops in the entire country combined.
Co-ops are not a replacement to the standard capitalist system.
Well, unless you provide an alternate definition, I guess we'll just have to disagree.
I am a member of a food co-op and a credit union.
I can tell from your post, you aren't a member of either. It sounds to me like you have no idea what you are talking about. I DO KNOW, that because of lobbyists, the varying levels of government make it more difficult for mutual aid cooperatives to function in our society. This is not a mistake. The ACA screwed everyone over. It was good only for insurance companies and big pharma, it had no carve outs for cooperative health care.
You folks are acting all brainwashed.
This is the most incompetent government in the Western hemisphere.
This would be unbelievable if we hadn't seen this from the statists over and over and over again in the Emerging Markets.
View attachment 252094
View attachment 252095
View attachment 252096
Venezuela’s Economic Collapse Explained in Nine Charts
Yes, well, it is going to be ignored, because it is hard to argue with the fact that government control over the economy is, in fact, dumb.Economic Warfare is the same as a medieval siege warfare on a town or city. It is a war-crime against the civilian population.
These charts are bullshit propaganda and do not tell the whole story. The U.S. and it's western allies are using their governments as a bully, to support the fascist paradigm of the global corporate structures because they desire the raw materials that the Venezuelan population owns.
It's not a whole lot different than manifest destiny.
Your nine charts tell a lie. This is how we started in Syria. What next, the CIA arming terrorists in Venezuela?
Former UN rapporteur: US sanctions against Venezuela causing economic and humanitarian crisis
Former UN rapporteur: US sanctions against Venezuela causing economic and humanitarian crisis
"A former United Nations rapporteur has criticised the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he claimed was the real reason for the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the country.
Alfred de Zayas, who last year became the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years, also suggested in his recently published UN report, that US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.
Mr De Zayas, an American lawyer, writer, historian and former secretary of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), presented his Venezuela report to the HRC in September.
In the report, which can be read in full here, Mr De Zayas recommended, among other actions, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as possible crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. . ."
UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions Cause Death in Venezuela
Venezuela-Related Sanctions
ODS HOME PAGE
consiidering who the OP is,what else would you expect other than BS propaganda posted? excellent job of taking him to school and owning him.LOL
The problem Chavez had starting out though, is the propaganda. He originally DIDN'T want to take control over that much of the economy. He just wanted to divert more of the fat of the land towards helping the poor. His opponents sort of forced his hand.
It was a tit for tat sort of thing, that eventually ended, with what he said was the CIA's weaponization of cancer, ending up in his death. And, well, you saw the economic warfare that resulted in that post I made.
He really was good for most of the nation, just not the upper class. IOW, he would have been like THEIR Donald Trump. The economic elites were just out to get him from the start.
How did Venezuela change under Hugo Chávez?
Venezuela's president has died 14 years after his first election victory. How did the country changed since Hugo Chávez took power?
How did Venezuela change under Hugo Chávez?
I don't want to discuss that split, I don't even care about that split. My point is, Marx didn't "invent" socialism. He was BORN in 1818.
There were Socialist communes of white settlers in America by 1825. The ideas for his writings came from his readings of native Americans. DUH.
Owenism - Wikipedia
What ignorant folks perceptions are doesn't concern me. We KNOW the TEE VEE brain washes and government schools do an awful job educating, so what? If you read about the history of socialism, the international, etc., it mentions co-ops, and mutual organizations over and over again. Socialism doesn't require a government is what I am TRYING to get through to you, but you refuse to listen.
GOVERNMENT is the problem, not socialism.
I listen, I just don't agree with you. Drexler and Eichart may have invented National Socialism, but Hitler took it to the form we know today.
Marx is the basis of the socialism we know of today, and the concept we discuss today.
And you do know who funded Marx?
Frankly, I think you are ignoring me. Over and over you ignore what I am telling you. The Deep State is USING SOCIALISM, just like it uses the drug war, or terrorism or anything else.
BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING STILL. ARE YOU?
Antony Sutton
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
"The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book."
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
Did you even read that first post I made after Toro's?
Sorry, i don't go for long rambling posts. Short and simple is my motto.
You don't have to be verbose to get across complex concepts.
Yeah, that is why I know more than you. I get my knowledge from reading, you get yours from the TEE VEE.
Sorry information is too much for you to handle.
I read plenty, I just don't go for the wall of text method of trying to reinforce my viewpoints.
Current non-fiction read is a re-read of "The control of Nature"
Current fiction re-read is "Cauldron" by Larry Bond.
I also own copies of Mein Kampf, Von Kreig, Achtung Pazer, and other original source items. Haven't read them again in a while though.
My collection prize is a multi-volume Readers Digest series on "the great war" Published in 1919.
So take your condescending attitude and cram it up your ass.
Yes, well, it is going to be ignored, because it is hard to argue with the fact that government control over the economy is, in fact, dumb.Economic Warfare is the same as a medieval siege warfare on a town or city. It is a war-crime against the civilian population.
These charts are bullshit propaganda and do not tell the whole story. The U.S. and it's western allies are using their governments as a bully, to support the fascist paradigm of the global corporate structures because they desire the raw materials that the Venezuelan population owns.
It's not a whole lot different than manifest destiny.
Your nine charts tell a lie. This is how we started in Syria. What next, the CIA arming terrorists in Venezuela?
Former UN rapporteur: US sanctions against Venezuela causing economic and humanitarian crisis
Former UN rapporteur: US sanctions against Venezuela causing economic and humanitarian crisis
"A former United Nations rapporteur has criticised the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he claimed was the real reason for the economic and humanitarian crisis facing the country.
Alfred de Zayas, who last year became the first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years, also suggested in his recently published UN report, that US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law.
Mr De Zayas, an American lawyer, writer, historian and former secretary of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), presented his Venezuela report to the HRC in September.
In the report, which can be read in full here, Mr De Zayas recommended, among other actions, that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as possible crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. . ."
UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions Cause Death in Venezuela
Venezuela-Related Sanctions
ODS HOME PAGE
consiidering who the OP is,what else would you expect other than BS propaganda posted? excellent job of taking him to school and owning him.LOL
The problem Chavez had starting out though, is the propaganda. He originally DIDN'T want to take control over that much of the economy. He just wanted to divert more of the fat of the land towards helping the poor. His opponents sort of forced his hand.
It was a tit for tat sort of thing, that eventually ended, with what he said was the CIA's weaponization of cancer, ending up in his death. And, well, you saw the economic warfare that resulted in that post I made.
He really was good for most of the nation, just not the upper class. IOW, he would have been like THEIR Donald Trump. The economic elites were just out to get him from the start.
How did Venezuela change under Hugo Chávez?
Venezuela's president has died 14 years after his first election victory. How did the country changed since Hugo Chávez took power?
How did Venezuela change under Hugo Chávez?
They can barely export a million barrels a day of low quality oil.
Chavez screwed them good.
At least his daughter is worth a few billion, eh?
Yeah, that is why I know more than you. I get my knowledge from reading, you get yours from the TEE VEE.I listen, I just don't agree with you. Drexler and Eichart may have invented National Socialism, but Hitler took it to the form we know today.
Marx is the basis of the socialism we know of today, and the concept we discuss today.
And you do know who funded Marx?
Frankly, I think you are ignoring me. Over and over you ignore what I am telling you. The Deep State is USING SOCIALISM, just like it uses the drug war, or terrorism or anything else.
BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING STILL. ARE YOU?
Antony Sutton
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
"The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book."
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
Did you even read that first post I made after Toro's?
Sorry, i don't go for long rambling posts. Short and simple is my motto.
You don't have to be verbose to get across complex concepts.
Sorry information is too much for you to handle.
I read plenty, I just don't go for the wall of text method of trying to reinforce my viewpoints.
Current non-fiction read is a re-read of "The control of Nature"
Current fiction re-read is "Cauldron" by Larry Bond.
I also own copies of Mein Kampf, Von Kreig, Achtung Pazer, and other original source items. Haven't read them again in a while though.
My collection prize is a multi-volume Readers Digest series on "the great war" Published in 1919.
So take your condescending attitude and cram it up your ass.
The reason I didn't just sum up, is if I told you, you would have went into full denial.
It is now a well established fact, the economic elites funded the rise of the STATE socialists. Not just internationally, but within our own system to rot our own culture.
Yeah, that is why I know more than you. I get my knowledge from reading, you get yours from the TEE VEE.And you do know who funded Marx?
Frankly, I think you are ignoring me. Over and over you ignore what I am telling you. The Deep State is USING SOCIALISM, just like it uses the drug war, or terrorism or anything else.
BUT YOU ARE NOT LISTENING STILL. ARE YOU?
Antony Sutton
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
"The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor's cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
I find it humorous that the big conservative commentators of our day laud people like JP Morgan, John D Rockefeller, and other robber barons as great, shining examples of the free-market capitalist system. In doing so, they really do expose their ignorance of how these men obtained and increased their wealth through government manipulation. In fact, we'll see Dr. Sutton make the point that men of this ilk were actually the architects of the socialist system.
Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor's cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book."
The republican Mother: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution: Chapter 1
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf
Did you even read that first post I made after Toro's?
Sorry, i don't go for long rambling posts. Short and simple is my motto.
You don't have to be verbose to get across complex concepts.
Sorry information is too much for you to handle.
I read plenty, I just don't go for the wall of text method of trying to reinforce my viewpoints.
Current non-fiction read is a re-read of "The control of Nature"
Current fiction re-read is "Cauldron" by Larry Bond.
I also own copies of Mein Kampf, Von Kreig, Achtung Pazer, and other original source items. Haven't read them again in a while though.
My collection prize is a multi-volume Readers Digest series on "the great war" Published in 1919.
So take your condescending attitude and cram it up your ass.
The reason I didn't just sum up, is if I told you, you would have went into full denial.
It is now a well established fact, the economic elites funded the rise of the STATE socialists. Not just internationally, but within our own system to rot our own culture.
Uh, oh I see you are about to go Illuminati on me.
Have fun with that.
This is like before the Iraq War, all our mainstream media and the propaganda machine just misinforming us...How the Media Distort News from Venezuela
