For some reason, Mom thinks that the people on Faux Noise mention God more than the people on CNN, so she seems absolutely convinced that basically everyone who works for CNN is a Communist. If she weren't in the world, I'd probably have quite a bit less to laugh about.
--Cliff, Sioux City, Iowa
On Facebook:♦ Personal Profile ♦ Political Group ♦ Political Page ♦
Karl's timing on his punchlines was not very good.
Socialism is nothing more than capitalism at it's worse. It is the idea that government or the state can control the market,but in order to do so the government/state needs to invest heavily in military force to protect it's interests, ideally it sounds good as they usually preach that they will take care of the people, but in reality those in power only use the socialist ideas for personal gain, power and wealth. In the end Marx says Communism will occur, which is, what many people don't know, because they don't read, but it is a system completely opposite of socialism, since it is the absence of government and the state. Under Communism there is no military controlling the interests of the state, only local militias, no longer does the state control patent laws, local communities openly produce without government restriction. In other words, socialism equal statism and communism equal anarchy. It almost sounds too good to be true, and it probably is, but given a choice I would prefer communism over socialism. Of course given another option, I prefer neither.
The humans involved in the Zeitgeist reality are independant. They do not need leaders or government. They refuse money, because they do not wish to be enslaved like us (history will teach them this, our history). They will see what we did to the planet and each other and they will choose another way. "They" will be different. They will be truly free. Liberty will no longer be the pipe dream it is now. Communism will be viewed as insanity, weakness. The movie is very clear. No hidden agenda. No NWO nonsense. Just one man's vision. It's interesting and worth watching.
If you read Marx, he used that exact statement that "history will teach them" the error of the profit motive. Marx also preached freedom in the very same way.
Seriously, read the article at the link. It is an excellent dissection of Marxism.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
Marx and Engels believed that the family was the central organizing factor of human life. Everything stems from the desire of parents to secure a safe future for their children and live free of economic oppression. However, the only reason Marx was able to sit around thinking and writing all day was that someone else was willing to grow his food in exchange for a currency. Marx never quite called for revolution, but simply postulated on it. It was after his death that would-be tyrants used his writings to fool people into the belief that they could control the mode and means of production.
But his ideas were never really workable and he says it often.
Remember "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie"? and "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"?
However, Zeitgeist Addendum triggered the same alarm bells for me as it did for so many others on this forum.
As a former Communist Party member, promises of paradise in some far-off distant future sounded very familiar to me.
Would you trade your liberty for a flying car?
Zeitgeist part 3: http://www2.b3ta.com/mind-control/
But it always seemed more abstract than a call to arms. I really would like to discuss that movie with a card-carrying communist but, the communist movement in the US is very secretive and they won't wear it on their sleeve. I have not really sat down with a true admitted socialist or communist in probably 12 years. But you're right as I was watching, I was remembering "the origin..."
Lenin wrote the founding document of "real world" communism.
Its called "What Is To Be Done?". It sets out the case for a secret conspiratorial organisation of revolutionaries with a public front in the trade unions. It is based on the 1905 civil unrest in Russia.
In the pamphlet, Lenin castigates "economists" (socialists who focus on the legal labor movement) and "terrorists" (socialists who focus on assasinations and the like). He said that successful communists need both legal and illegal operations.
It probably seems like hair-splitting to most Libertarians, but it sounds very odd for me to hear mainstream politicians being labelled as "Communists".
I keep thinking "since when was Bush/Obama/McCain an underground revolutionary, the head of an illegal organisation, moving from safe-house to safe-house, hounded by the authorities?".
If we study the history of Fascism we find a much better fit to our present circumstances. Hitler and Mussolini were effectively handed power by the establishment. Their power base was the banking elite and the military industrial complex. Sound familiar?
That's not to say that communists never recieve support from the powers-that-be. It is usually FOREIGN communists that get the cash/weapons to de-stabilise an enemy ;-)
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: