I've lived in Mtn Home since 1989, so that's...hold on...I'm thinking...WOW! Exactly 25 years! Boy, I think I can almost declare myself an Idahoan. But my family is British and I grew up in Louisiana around lots of other Brits so I still think I'm a little bit of a mutt. Those of you who have been around awhile may remember when I used to blog all the time. My opinions weren't very accepted and there was always an issue because I work for the county. That really wasn't fair because I NEVER blog at work! And I am still entitled to my opinions and thoughts about city and county issues, right? However, it stirred a lot of pots and those pots certainly can make a lot of noise! Since I'm a writer, I took what I wrote in my blog seriously so I spent a lot of time researching things which got exhausting to do when you're not even get a paycheck for it. So I stopped. That was a blessing to many! However, to this day, I still have people stop me and ask me why I wasn't blogging and t! hey missed it. I've missed it. Mainly because there are so many issues that come up and I have no voice except around my friends and I'm sure they are tired of it.

Socialism a step away-Part 1

Posted Sunday, November 1, 2009, at 3:55 PM

No Thank you!

Socialism is the state of a government between what is now and what it is headed towards. In other words, Socialism is one step behind Communism. Both are fearful words to most. I continue to fear the first because I know that it will lead to the second. Who in America wants to become a Communist nation? Anybody? I think I hear crickets.

Socialism is defined as (according to the American Heritage dictionary) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Or for those who question that dictionary. Here is the Columbia Dictionary: general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods.

In other words: From each according to ability; to each according to needs.

IN order to be fair and balanced. I read the website: worldsocialism.com in order to see what they believe. Here it is. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

So first we start with the noble hope that we all can exist in harmony with one another each sharing and no one person having more than the other. Nice thought, but always a failure. Now I move to Karl Marx, who started the Socialist Movement based on "noble" reasons. However, his method was to remove religion and opposition by any means. He demanded the abolishment of religion and stated that religion was the reason that all workers were oppressed and downtrodden. Furthermore, he knew that in order to establish this socialist state he would have to start a bloody revolution and mass killings of people in the upper class was important to success. So thus began the fall of man. There were mass executions and anyone intelligent, holding leadership and/or a critic against the socialist policies were jailed, exported or killed.

At that point in the game of taking over a government, Marx referred to the need for a strong leader that will rule with the power to enforce the new policies. This ruler would be untouchable and the people wouldn't have access to him.

"Socialism is a system which ignores borders. For any wealth to be accumulated within a country, it has been done at the expense of the workers. These workers have the power to form revolutionary groups regardless of what current political controls are in place. Policies like NAFTA and terms like illegal immigration are irrelevant under socialism. Socialism is not communism. If there was a spectrum of systems that had capitalism at one end and communism at the other, socialism would occupy a great deal of the middle ground. Socialism is necessary in order to form a communist society. In addition, communism makes all property public, removes any right of estate and creates a government to stand in opposition to any form of capitalism." Read more: http://povertyworlddevelopment.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_socialism#ixzz0V...

Next post, I read more about Communist and share it with you.

Comments

View 7 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How do WE stop it Mike, those of us who do not possess an arsenal, how do I stop it?

-- Posted by mhg4316 on Sun, Nov 1, 2009, at 4:30 PM
Pure communism as that described by Marx in Das Kapital is impossible. No society ever in existence nor any that will ever be could live up to those ideals. I will leave it to others to figure out for themselves, why that is. I am surprised that any that post on here dont already know this. Or maybe they do already but impassioned, evangelist propaganda is better reading and brings more attention to those who write it.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 10:56 AM
seems like all hell is broken loose here,....

First off, Marx didn't start the socialist movement or any other movement. (I'm pretty sure I remember reading some Socrates mumbo-jumbo about a commune type society he envisioned) Marx just theorized the social evolution of humankind and came up with theories about how the economy could possibly work if socialism/communism came about in a slow evolutionary way. And revolution was only a secondary means to get rid of capitalism. But violent revolt would only make things harder in the long run, so he wasn't down with that. And Marx was very anti-authoritarian and would have disagreed with how Lenin and Stalin gave themselves power and wouldn't release it.

And that is where your skewed history fails. It was Lenin and Stalin that instituted the 'untouchable leader' as you called it. And they were the ones that caused the murderous purges to come about. And these killings had to do with people, all peoples, who dissented against Leninism and or Stalin-ism. Which are not even close to what Karl Marx had in mind. But it's an easy mistake to make when you've never read anything by Marx, nor would you. God forbid you use your freedom to read anything that is forbidding by normalized America. SO, Taboo.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not in anyway defending Stalin or Lenin. I am, in fact, defending Marx. Why? Because for some strange reason the Rightist always intermingle historical facts and figures so they can further what-ever weird cause it is that they are trying to achieve.

I like how punctuated the brutality of leftist revolutions. Very ineffective when you realize that revolutions of all kinds are bloody and massive amounts of people are killed. It's revolution Man! Should we go into the numbers of deaths, imprisonments so on and so forth of the American Revolution and it's forward push to send the Native Americans to near extinction coupled with the legal slavery of humans in the U.S.A.

No, lets not. The details don't matter if Gods involved right?

Go ahead and verbally abuse me for reading the unacceptable.

Moving to your other skewed history blog part.2

-- Posted by censored on Mon, Nov 2, 2009, at 8:57 PM
I have read most of Das Kapital. It is very long and hard to read. Anyways, the book is mostly about choice. The economics are flawed. He did not advocate a top heavy political system. Basically, for those who always use the word, communism, to provoke shock and awe they should be using Lenin and not Marx as their source. The brand of govt. that Lenin put into practice shares virtually nothing with that of Marx. The world that Marx outlines is impossible and any politician that would try to live by it is a fool. It is not for the reasons that most think.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 11:31 AM
I agree that Lenin and Stalin are the true evil that became Communism. And I did say that Marx started with a noble idea. It is unfortunate that evil heavy-handed power-hungry men, who felt that certain races of people were less than animals in their eyes, took the ideas and killed millions. Since their God didn't exist, they could do anything to get rid of these people and feel no guilt. There was no conscience, no morality. I think that Marx did start with good in mind. And it is entirely possible that this current government truly believes that they are noble as well. Sad, but the nobel deeds will enslave the people.

-- Posted by kimkovac on Tue, Nov 3, 2009, at 8:54 PM
So henceforth and forever, these evil men should be labeled as power-hungry nihilist with a god complex.

The whole history of the human race is fraught with noble ideas and deeds that always manage to be one sided and disastrous.

That doesn't mean that the religions or lack of God/s that spawned these missteps are fully to blame. It is human arrogance,....

-- Posted by censored on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 7:13 AM
I will limit this rant but one reason that pure Marxian ways do not work is that everyone has to be the same in essence. There is no need for a leader because everybody is on board and of equal motivation. We all know that is a fallacy. Biological differences make some naturally more motivated or passionate than others. Also, the way that someone is raised will have an effect. Assuming that everyone will be on the same page and have the same motivation and goals is ludicrous. If you read Das Kapital and read the sections on the reserve army of the unemployed and their eventual role in life, one will see what I am talking about.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Nov 4, 2009, at 8:32 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register