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.
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