The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.
Remember, those who promote certain textbooks over others are people who want to deceive you, to keep you confused, thus giving them power over you.
The classic textbook explanation has been that the end goal would be communism, where everyone owns everything (and nothing, at the same time), so everyone would live in peace and harmony.
But we KNOW that is not true.
Marx described the process of going from capitalism to socialism, where the state would "have to" control everything so the capitalists would lose power. Once the masses were on board with communist ideas, the state could then "whither away" as there would be no more need for a state, and the people would all live in peace and harmony.
But we know that is a LIE.
The reality is that the [criminal gang] wants to rule the world. Communism is only ONE TOOL they use in their arsenal.
Here is a history of communism that goes back BEFORE Karl Marx, and claims that he really had almost nothing at all to do with it. His name was not even put on the "Communist Manifesto" until 20 years after it was written.
The true story is that the same people who were involved in the Illuminati introduced the idea of communism in 1829 (long before Marx) as a tool of division, to cause problems that they could then solve.
The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.
I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are (or even Capitalism for that matter). The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.
Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.
Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than, for example, "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.
The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.
None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights, that we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction, and to understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.
'A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" and is not the private concern or property of the rulers. In a republic, officials are elected by the citizens to represent their interests, and the government operates under a system of laws that protect individual rights and liberties. Key characteristics include the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the accountability of government officials to the electorate.'
'A democratic form of government is one in which power is vested in the people, who exercise that power directly or through elected representatives. Key features of democracy include free and fair elections, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and active participation of citizens in political processes. Democracies promote accountability, transparency, and the ability of citizens to influence government decisions.'
As we know the founders of our form of government did NOT want a democratic style governance only. They knew a republic would work to serve the newly formed country much better. But, as we can see any form of government can be highjacked and corruption can occur. Particularly, when we have a central banking system that creates slaves of us all.
We are in no way a democracy. The word democracy is found no where in the Constitution. The Founders feared and hated a democracy. They knew throughout history that it always led eventual dictatorship. The US is a Constitutional Republic. Some people try to twist it and say we are a Representative Democracy but a Representative Democracy is even more dangerous than a pure democracy.
You ignored the constitutional requirement that I pointed out, and you pretend it says something that it does not say.
You then falsely equate the two.
There IS a difference.
The DIFFERENCE is the key.
Politicians and other types of wanabe tyrants ALWAYS talk about "democracy" BECAUSE they don't like the constraints of a republican form of government.
For that reason, many of us INSIST on pointing out that the USA is REPUBLICAN in its legal form and NOT a democracy.
There are democratic ELEMENTS when it comes to voting for (a) local government, (b) state legislature, (c) state executive branch, and (d) members of House of Representatives.
But senators and president were NOT by democratic vote.
The checks and balances, along with the constitutional PROHIBITIONS against the federal government's powers are what made the American system unique, and are the ONLY reason we still have some vestages of liberty left.
It has been a tough nut for the wanabe tyrants to crack -- though they have been trying since the foundation.
Many of us view it as TREASONOUS to claim that the USA is a "democracy," when we know damn well that such a thing leads to tyranny, which leads to communism, which is a form of slavery.
The OP's quote from Marx is wrong. Democracy does not lead to socialism. It is much worse. It leads to slavery.
Without the checks and balances of a REPUBLICAN form of government, you end up in slavery.
THIS is why it matters to call out the FALSE claims.
Democracy ends and tyranny begins when 51% realize they can vote to take away the property and other rights of the other 49%.
We are on the brink of that reality ... RIGHT NOW.
In public discourse, the use of the word "democracy" invokes a majority rules concept, and nothing more. Sure, it is "the people" voting for this or that, but ultimately it is ONLY the majority voting for something that matters.
And that is a dangerous idea.
THAT is why they use that word.
Use of the word "republic" is far more complex, and invokes the idea of checks and balances and limited authority of the government -- at least, as the founders understood it.
Yes, of course, we hear "banana republic" and "third world republic" and "republic of this or that."
WHY would people who want to DECEIVE, for the purpose of CONTROL, champion the use of the word "democracy" while using pejoratives for the word "republic?"
The ONLY reason would be for psychological manipulation to get people to think: democracy, good; republic, bad.
This is the exact opposite of what SHOULD be promoted in public.
That reminds me of how today, in the 21st century, how we can look at history books, which show that Thomas Jefferson's political party ("faction") was Democrat-Republican.
WHY do they say that?
It is a LIE.
Jefferson called himself and his like-minded thinkers: REPUBLICANS.
"Democrat" was a word used for Andrew Jackson and his peeps.
The term "Democrat-Republican" is a made-up term, unknown to Jefferson, and one created for the purpose of deception.
BTW, you still have sidestepped my original point that the Constitution REQUIRES a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
Why?
"Representative democracy" is not an answer, because it is not a republican form government.
P.S.: Slavery was inherited, not invented by Americans, with a political compromise to preserve it for 21 years after the Constitution (age of majority under the law), and then it would be open to abolishing. It was a compromise, and not a feature, of the new government. So, that is a moot point.
I’m looking forward to a time when people stop being so mentally adolescent such that we can have honest discussions about the mechanical realities of the time period, rather than just “Oh, [keyword]! Therefore [programmed response]!!”
The reasoning was valid but ….
It’s frustrating that we live in a world of adults who have a mindset such that it’s possible to denounce something, yet if you proceed to think critically about how things got to that point, even in the same sentence, you haven’t denounced it enough, and therefore endorse it!!!
It’s a retarded, infantile mindset, that belies the inability of a large group of people to engage in independent thought, and I hate it.
.. so I self censored. Let’s hurry up and win this damn war.
Thanks for your well thought out responses, I enjoyed reading them. You don’t need to win every word exchange and setting down the hatchet can be a good thing after a few exchanges when the other side won’t argue fairly.
The USA is not a Democracy, the USA is not even Representative Democracy, the USA is constitutional republic. Representative Democracy is the most dangerous form of democracy.
USA is not a democracy, never has been and never will be. Representative democracy is the most dangerous form of democracy, Germany was a representative democracy when Hitler was elected to power.
Calling the USA democracy is like pissing on the graves of the founding fathers. The USA has never been democracy and never will be. Democracy is tyranny that leads to socialism and socialism to communism and communism to deaths of millions of people in concentration camps. The USA was created republic to prevent that from happening. Adolf Hitler became dictator of Germany because Germany was a democratic country. That would never happen in the USA unless Demoncraps succeed transforming the USA into democracy. Adolf Hitler was a Democrat.
The textbook understanding of socialism/communism should be re-considered.
Remember, those who promote certain textbooks over others are people who want to deceive you, to keep you confused, thus giving them power over you.
The classic textbook explanation has been that the end goal would be communism, where everyone owns everything (and nothing, at the same time), so everyone would live in peace and harmony.
But we KNOW that is not true.
Marx described the process of going from capitalism to socialism, where the state would "have to" control everything so the capitalists would lose power. Once the masses were on board with communist ideas, the state could then "whither away" as there would be no more need for a state, and the people would all live in peace and harmony.
But we know that is a LIE.
The reality is that the [criminal gang] wants to rule the world. Communism is only ONE TOOL they use in their arsenal.
Here is a history of communism that goes back BEFORE Karl Marx, and claims that he really had almost nothing at all to do with it. His name was not even put on the "Communist Manifesto" until 20 years after it was written.
The true story is that the same people who were involved in the Illuminati introduced the idea of communism in 1829 (long before Marx) as a tool of division, to cause problems that they could then solve.
Problem >> Reaction >> Solution
Same old playbook, repeated over and over again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twEWYTvX3lQ
I agree that no one really understands what Communism or Socialism are (or even Capitalism for that matter). The common, or even current academic understandings of these terms are so convoluted as to not even resemble the philosophical ideas or even formal definitions of them.
Specifically with Socialism, it is the idea that "the workers determine the means of production." But what does that mean? It means that for any organization of people, no matter the size of the group, or the other elements of the organization, everyone has a direct say in the determination of the productive output of that group.
Socialism is an economic design model, nothing more. The problem isn't in the economic design model, the problem is the powers exerted by the decision makers (in this case the entire group) over the individuals of the group. When "determine the means of production" becomes more than, for example, "we'll vote on whether or not we should create an assembly line to streamline this process" and instead becomes "how people are allowed to live their very lives," or "what actions are people allowed to do," etc., then the "means of production" begins to infringe on individual rights.
The problem with Socialism then, is one of the scope of the application. But that is the exact same problem as every other economic design model, whether it be Communism, Capitalism, variants thereof (Fascism e.g.), or any other idea of an economic design model you can come up with. In other words, the problem is not ever really the economic design model itself, but the SCOPE of the application; what powers are We The People allowing the decision makers to make. It doesn't matter what group is making the decisions (republic, the entire public, oligarchy, dictator, etc.). All that matters is what power they have. Do we allow them to make decisions that infringe on individual Rights e.g., or do we not.
None of these economic models are good or bad. What is bad is whether or not a person's Rights are being infringed by whatever system is being employed. The solution then, is for every single individual who makes up the group to understand, to grok, in the most complete way, that we have Rights, that we are Sovereign (Ultimate Authority) of our Jurisdiction, and to understand what that Jurisdiction is. Only with broad scale understanding of these things can we have the strength, on the social scale, to insist, without compromise, that we WILL NOT allow for our Rights to be infringed by the system, no matter what system any group adopts.
"Rothschild agent Chaim Mordecai makes Masonic sign. Freemasonry is Jewish Cabalism. Cabalism is Satanism."
https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/05/Karl-Marx-Was-Rothschilds-Third-Cousin%20.html
Right on target.
'A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" and is not the private concern or property of the rulers. In a republic, officials are elected by the citizens to represent their interests, and the government operates under a system of laws that protect individual rights and liberties. Key characteristics include the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the accountability of government officials to the electorate.'
'A democratic form of government is one in which power is vested in the people, who exercise that power directly or through elected representatives. Key features of democracy include free and fair elections, the protection of individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law, and active participation of citizens in political processes. Democracies promote accountability, transparency, and the ability of citizens to influence government decisions.'
As we know the founders of our form of government did NOT want a democratic style governance only. They knew a republic would work to serve the newly formed country much better. But, as we can see any form of government can be highjacked and corruption can occur. Particularly, when we have a central banking system that creates slaves of us all.
I agree, I hate when the dems & rinos use the word "democracy" to talk about our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
We are in no way a democracy. The word democracy is found no where in the Constitution. The Founders feared and hated a democracy. They knew throughout history that it always led eventual dictatorship. The US is a Constitutional Republic. Some people try to twist it and say we are a Representative Democracy but a Representative Democracy is even more dangerous than a pure democracy.
Sticky reason: we got some high-energy anons in here.
They yell democracy day and night--all you have to point out is the Pledge.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Frank Bellamy a socialist minister.
They don't really mean Democarcy, They mean the Democratic party...
At the RNC, Tucker Carlson kept saying
over and over and over again.
Great quotes, but they were ALL wrong, because ...
US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4:
So, you should be asking: What IS a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy, and why did the Founding Fathers REQUIRE it?
Fact check: FALSE.
You ignored the constitutional requirement that I pointed out, and you pretend it says something that it does not say.
You then falsely equate the two.
There IS a difference.
The DIFFERENCE is the key.
Politicians and other types of wanabe tyrants ALWAYS talk about "democracy" BECAUSE they don't like the constraints of a republican form of government.
For that reason, many of us INSIST on pointing out that the USA is REPUBLICAN in its legal form and NOT a democracy.
There are democratic ELEMENTS when it comes to voting for (a) local government, (b) state legislature, (c) state executive branch, and (d) members of House of Representatives.
But senators and president were NOT by democratic vote.
The checks and balances, along with the constitutional PROHIBITIONS against the federal government's powers are what made the American system unique, and are the ONLY reason we still have some vestages of liberty left.
It has been a tough nut for the wanabe tyrants to crack -- though they have been trying since the foundation.
Many of us view it as TREASONOUS to claim that the USA is a "democracy," when we know damn well that such a thing leads to tyranny, which leads to communism, which is a form of slavery.
The OP's quote from Marx is wrong. Democracy does not lead to socialism. It is much worse. It leads to slavery.
Without the checks and balances of a REPUBLICAN form of government, you end up in slavery.
THIS is why it matters to call out the FALSE claims.
Democracy ends and tyranny begins when 51% realize they can vote to take away the property and other rights of the other 49%.
We are on the brink of that reality ... RIGHT NOW.
In public discourse, the use of the word "democracy" invokes a majority rules concept, and nothing more. Sure, it is "the people" voting for this or that, but ultimately it is ONLY the majority voting for something that matters.
And that is a dangerous idea.
THAT is why they use that word.
Use of the word "republic" is far more complex, and invokes the idea of checks and balances and limited authority of the government -- at least, as the founders understood it.
Yes, of course, we hear "banana republic" and "third world republic" and "republic of this or that."
WHY would people who want to DECEIVE, for the purpose of CONTROL, champion the use of the word "democracy" while using pejoratives for the word "republic?"
The ONLY reason would be for psychological manipulation to get people to think: democracy, good; republic, bad.
This is the exact opposite of what SHOULD be promoted in public.
That reminds me of how today, in the 21st century, how we can look at history books, which show that Thomas Jefferson's political party ("faction") was Democrat-Republican.
WHY do they say that?
It is a LIE.
Jefferson called himself and his like-minded thinkers: REPUBLICANS.
"Democrat" was a word used for Andrew Jackson and his peeps.
The term "Democrat-Republican" is a made-up term, unknown to Jefferson, and one created for the purpose of deception.
BTW, you still have sidestepped my original point that the Constitution REQUIRES a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
Why?
"Representative democracy" is not an answer, because it is not a republican form government.
P.S.: Slavery was inherited, not invented by Americans, with a political compromise to preserve it for 21 years after the Constitution (age of majority under the law), and then it would be open to abolishing. It was a compromise, and not a feature, of the new government. So, that is a moot point.
I’m looking forward to a time when people stop being so mentally adolescent such that we can have honest discussions about the mechanical realities of the time period, rather than just “Oh, [keyword]! Therefore [programmed response]!!”
The reasoning was valid but ….
It’s frustrating that we live in a world of adults who have a mindset such that it’s possible to denounce something, yet if you proceed to think critically about how things got to that point, even in the same sentence, you haven’t denounced it enough, and therefore endorse it!!!
It’s a retarded, infantile mindset, that belies the inability of a large group of people to engage in independent thought, and I hate it.
.. so I self censored. Let’s hurry up and win this damn war.
Thanks for your well thought out responses, I enjoyed reading them. You don’t need to win every word exchange and setting down the hatchet can be a good thing after a few exchanges when the other side won’t argue fairly.
The USA is not a Democracy, the USA is not even Representative Democracy, the USA is constitutional republic. Representative Democracy is the most dangerous form of democracy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV5arQxexyg&t=153s
“Democracy” is the means of ELECTING a Republican government.
It is not the form of government itself. Do more research.
Gosh, ok.
USA is not a democracy, never has been and never will be. Representative democracy is the most dangerous form of democracy, Germany was a representative democracy when Hitler was elected to power.
Calling the USA democracy is like pissing on the graves of the founding fathers. The USA has never been democracy and never will be. Democracy is tyranny that leads to socialism and socialism to communism and communism to deaths of millions of people in concentration camps. The USA was created republic to prevent that from happening. Adolf Hitler became dictator of Germany because Germany was a democratic country. That would never happen in the USA unless Demoncraps succeed transforming the USA into democracy. Adolf Hitler was a Democrat.
Handshake "DjTwarrant" ...
^ Shows what kind of lemming we are dealing with here.