Socialism study
SOCIALISM?
One dictionary definition of Socialism states: "Socialism is an “economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems”.
Let’s break it down. “Social ownership as opposed to Private ownership” must mean one of two things: either “Social” means that every worker in a production has ownership of that production, (so “Private” here would mean in the hands of one or a few) or "Social" means Government owned and controlled. If we believe the first idea, which is Noam Chomsky's definition, we have to ask if we Have ever had a political system system where the workers own the means of production, and if so, where has this system prevailed as a political construct in a country or a State? Has it ever? Has any country known as Socialist ever had that model? No, it has never happened. But let's go further. If that definition is the correct definition, how do you implement worker ownership of production in all industry…in an entire country? Is that even possible?
Think about it. We are saying that the few who have the intellectual and creative talent and drive to create products/Intellectual Properties and who set up business models and models of production will then be forced to give away the ownership of the means of production of what they created and invested in, to a vast majority who have neither the creativity or the knowledge to create the product and the models of business and production. Is that likely to give the creators incentive to create as many products and intellectual properties as they can? Do the creators get any residuals? Are they allowed to maintain ownership of the creation itself? Or if not, then at least the assigned authorship? And then the punchline, of course, is that if the creators of a business and a product do not want to give the ownership of production to the workers, then they will have to be forced to do so. By who? By Government, of course.
Yugoslavia had a system that was similar to that description in which there was worker "self management" which is not the same as ownership. It was a "Hybrid" Socialist society which had a "market system". Talking this over one day with an economist who grew up and lived in the Soviet Union, He told me that no pure Communist or Socialist state is economically self sustainable. This is why wealthy capitalists and banks are always used to keep those "economies" afloat. He added that he would never vote for any party that supported Socialism as he himself had lived in a Socialist state.
That's one online Dictionary definition. Here is another, very similar, but this has an interesting twist:
“The general socialism definition, broadly speaking, is that socialism is a political and economic system in which the means of production and property have public ownership and are not controlled by the government.”
Did they misuse the word “Public”? Here is the definition of State ownership, also from an online dictionary:
“State ownership, also called public ownership or government ownership, is the ownership of an industry, asset, or enterprise by the state or a public body representing a community, as opposed to an individual or private party.” (My emphasis)
So this definition says that Socialism is Public and not Government ownership, while the online dictionary says that Public ownership is Government ownership. Which means that this second definition is a contradiction of itself. But let's go with the first apparent definition of "Public" ownership. Do they mean the entire public? Or do they simply mean that the ownership is not controlled by Government? But isn't that the definition of Private ownership?
So we are lost in words and their definitions. Even if we weren't thrown contradictory terms, it is clear that no clear definition of Socialism can be gleaned by the two definitions mentioned as they do not make any logical sense.
Yet another definition of Socialism, says: "Whereas Communism is a form of Totalitarianism, Socialism is a system where the citizens of a country own the resources of that country." Huh? Does that mean that if the United States became Socialist today (2024) then 350,000,000 people would own each resource? Is that even possible?
Of course not, it is utter nonsense. But why these different definitions, one might ask, of which none, upon examination, make sense?
I personally believe in programs to help people. I also believe in providing opportunity for work for those who can not find any. But let's talk about what actual Socialism really means. Every country that has practiced (real) Socialism or Communism has been totalitarian. Without exception. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazis) were among the most cruel and murderous regimes in history. Before one of the most brutal dictators in history, Stalin, rose to power, we had Lenin. There are intellectuals proudly--today claiming to be Marxist/Leninist. They claim he was benevolent. So let's hear from Lenin himself after the Revolution had begun:
“Liberty, is a luxury not to be permitted at the present stage of development. When the revolution is out of danger, external and domestic, then free speech might be indulged in. All enemies must be crushed and all power centralized in the Communist state. In this process the government is often compelled to resort to unpleasant means, but that is the imperative of the situation from which there can be no shrinking. In the course of time these methods will be abolished.” V. Lenin
Notice he said "Free speech might be indulged in". Might? Indulged? All enemies crushed and all power centralized...does that sound like a "People's movement"?
Bertrand Russell, on meeting with Lenin: “He had a great readiness to stir up hatred.”
One of the questions Russell put to Lenin he relays in this account:
“I said that you profess to be establishing Socialism, but as far as the countryside is concerned you seem to me to be establishing peasant proprietorship, which is a very different thing from agricultural socialism. And he (Lenin) said “Oh dear me no, we are not establishing peasant proprietorship. You see, there are poor peasants and rich peasants and we stirred up the poor peasants against the rich peasants. They soon hanged them to the nearest tree HA HA HA HA HA!” I didn’t much like that.”
Does Lenin seem in any way benevolent? Vyacheslav Molotov, who knew both Stalin and Lenin very well said "Compared to Lenin, Stalin was a mere lamb".
So let's cut through the propaganda nonsense and actually examine what "Social" in politics means, it means Government Control. It is that simple. So why are politicians and media "pundits" presenting Socialism as a movement for and of the people? Is Socialism really a beneficial idea born from compassion?
In an article that actually connects the dots and goes into the history of Socialism, we have this offering:
"In 1971, Gary Allen published his book, "None Dare Call it Conspiracy". It quickly became an unofficial best seller.
Over the years, several million copies have been sold.
Allen's thesis was stark: super-rich American capitalists were financing socialism. (My emphasis) This bizarre paradox was resolved when socialism was properly understood-not as "power to the people"-but as elite power over the people. In other words, as a hoax.
These days, the socialist hoax is still unknown to most of the population:
Cloak a global power grab as progress for all of humanity.
Here, from chapter six of None Dare Call it Conspiracy, "The Rockefellers and the Reds," is an explosive passage commenting on the period just after the Russian Revolution of 1917:
"The Rockefellers assigned their public relations agent, Ivy Lee, to sell the American public the idea that the Bolsheviks were merely misunderstood idealists who were actually kind benefactors of mankind."
"Professor Antony Sutton of Stanford University's Hoover Institution, notes in his highly authoritative Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development:"
"'Quite predictably...[Ivy] Lee concludes that the communist problem is merely psychological. By this time he is talking about "Russians" (not Communists) and concludes "they are all right." He suggests the United States should not engage in propaganda; makes a plea for peaceful coexistence; and suggests the United States would find it sound policy to recognize the USSR and advance credits [give loans].' (Antony Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917-1930, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Calif., 1968, p.292)"
"After the Bolshevik Revolution, Standard [Oil] of New Jersey [Rockefeller] bought 50 per cent of the Nobel's huge Caucasus oil fields even though the property had theoretically been nationalized [by Russia]. (O'Connor, Harvey, The Empire Of Oil, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1955, p.270.)"
"In 1927, Standard Oil of New York [Rockefeller] built a refinery in Russia, thereby helping the Bolsheviks put their economy back on its feet. Professor Sutton states: 'This was the first United States investment in Russia since the Revolution.' (Ibid, Vol.1, p.38)"
"Shortly thereafter Standard Oil of New York and its subsidiary, Vacuum Oil Company [Rockefeller], concluded a deal to market Soviet oil in European countries and it was reported that a loan of $75,009,000 to the Bolsheviks was arranged. (National Republic, Sept.1927.)"
"...Wherever Standard Oil would go, Chase National Bank was sure to follow. (The Rockefeller's Chase Bank was later merged with the Warburg's Manhattan Bank to form the present Chase Manhattan Bank.) In order to rescue the Bolsheviks, who were supposedly an archenemy, the Chase National Bank was instrumental in establishing the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in 1922. President of the Chamber was Reeve Schley, a vice-president of Chase National Bank. (Ibid, Vol.11, p.288) According to Professor Sutton: 'In 1925, negotiations between Chase and [Russian] Prombank extended beyond the finance of raw materials and mapped out a complete program for financing Soviet raw material exports to the U. S. and imports of U. S. cotton and machinery.' (Ibid, Vol.11, p.226) Sutton also reports that 'Chase National Bank and the Equitable Trust Company were leaders in the Soviet credit business.' (Ibid, p.277)"
"The Rockefeller's Chase National Bank also was involved in selling Bolshevik bonds in the United States in 1928. Patriotic organizations denounced the Chase as an 'international fence.' Chase was called 'a disgrace to America... They will go to any lengths for a few dollars profits.' (Ibid, Vol.11, p.291) Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, maintained in a speech to his fellow Congressmen:"
"'The Soviet government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks acting through the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Company and other banks in New York City."
"'Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet Trade Organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States' Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State Bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York'. (Congressional Record, June 15, 1933.)"
"But the Rockefellers apparently were not alone in financing the Communist arm of the Insiders' conspiracy. According to Professor Sutton '... there is a report in the State Department files that names Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (the long established and important financial house in New York) as the financier of the [Russians'] First Five Year Plan. See U. S. State Dept. Decimal File, 811.51/3711 and 861.50 FIVE YEAR PLAN/236.' (Sutton, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 340n.)"
"Professor Sutton proves conclusively in his three volume history of Soviet technological development that the Soviet Union was almost literally manufactured by the U.S.A..."
"...Sutton shows that there is hardly a segment of the Soviet economy which is not a result of the transference of Western, particularly American, technology."
"This cannot be wholly the result of accident. For fifty years the Federal Reserve-CFR-Rockefeller-
NOTE: The descendants of these bankers are now doing everything they can to build up the story that Donald Trump won the presidency by colluding with Russians. To call this an irony, in view of the above information, would be a vast understatement.
However, the motives of these men are clear: regardless of whether Trump meant to keep his promises to destroy Globalism (aka worldwide Socialism or totalitarianism), his mere mention of Globalism as the enemy, during the presidential campaign, and his declared opposition to Globalist "free trade" treaties, was sufficient to warrant an all-out attack on him." (It should be noted that on page 173 of the Mueller report it states clearly that there is no evidence of Russian collusion. What is more ironic is that Bill and Hillary Clinton freely admitted that the Russians under Putin donated over 100,000,000 dollars to the Clinton foundation through ROSATOM, the Russian Nuclear agency after the Clintons had sold Russians significant amounts of weapon grade Uranium. AND this was never even denied. The punchline? None of these facts matter to the Trump haters. War hating pacifists despise him even though he is the only president since Carter that refused to go to war. And these same "Pacifists" love the President that had the fewest days of peace, one of David Rockefeller's own, Barack Obama.) Oh but he's a racist right? that's why there are pictures of him with Jesse Jackson and Rosa Parks with a medal he received for helping Black neighborhoods, and why Jesse Jackson also gave him a medal for hiring the most Minorities. And why, time and time and time again--fully recorded--he has denounced racism and White Supremacy....
So it would seem from this narrative that the Rockefeller and other wealthy Capitalists have a great interest in funding the Socialist movement. If Socialism is indeed totalitarianism, then it would make sense. What is astonishing is that neither Rockefeller nor his buddy Zbigniew Brzezinski have ever denied their involvement. In fact they have openly admitted to their misdeeds.
Any doubt on the question of the Trilateral Commission's goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003):
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." My emphasis. World Peace? No, its opposite. Hence the drive for Socialism and the propagandizing of the American people. Conspiracy Theory? No, not Theory, as Rockefeller and Brzezinski have freely admitted, but Conspiracy Fact. Isn't it interesting that the term Conspiracy Theory has become so popular in recent years? It's all part of the--freely admitted --propaganda.
First of all, David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission was born in 1973, in part because the Globalist plan to ensure "free trade" (no tariffs paid by predatory mega-corporations) had run into a glitch.
That glitch had been President Richard Nixon. He began laying tariffs on certain goods imported into the US, in order to level the playing field and protect American companies. Nixon, a crook in other respects, went off-script in this case and actually started a movement to reject the Globalist vision.
What saved Nixon from assassination (as happened to Kennedy) was Watergate. He would be shamed into quitting. It was later realized that in order to remove an Unwanted President, far better than an actual assassination would be a Character Assassination which the Media would then be used to orchestrate. With an actual killing of a President, that President can become a folk hero. With a Character killing the people (Who love to hate) will hate that person so much that any thought of what that person was trying to do would be looked on as bad. EVEN if the President refused to go to war at all, oversaw a Peace Accord in the Middle East, and made the biggest crackdown of child Trafficking of anyone (as with Trump). Saving their own nation would even be looked on as bad. This has never happened before. But this is how malleable the minds of people here are. I have friends that, rightly, protested W.Bush's war in Iraq. But these very people did not lift a finger to protest Obama's wars. Interesting, isn't it. Were they really protesting the wars or were they protesting the President they did not like?
After Nixon's ouster from the White House, Gerald Ford became president, and he chose David's brother, Nelson Rockefeller as his vice-president. It was a sign Globalism and "free trade" were back on track. Once again, remember--this is not World Peace we are talking about, but a worldwide USSR or even worse, with no hope of escape. To move to another article, we have this:
But David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, wanted more. They wanted a man in the White House whom they'd created from scratch.
That man was a peanut farmer no one had ever heard of: Jimmy Carter.
Through their media connections, David and Brzezinski vaulted Carter into the spotlight. He won the Democratic nomination (1976), spread a syrupy message of love and coming together after the Watergate debacle, and soon he was ensconced in the Oval Office.
Flash forward to 1978, the second year of Carter's presidency. An interview took place.
It's a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment. It's a through-the-looking-glass secret---in the form of a conversation between a reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper.
The interview concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter's administration, was formulating and controlling US economic and political policy.
The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It's as if they're saying, "What we're revealing is already out in the open, it's too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we've already won..."
NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?
COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.
NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize 'this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.' Who are you afraid of?
KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.
COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations [!], and they would resent such coordination [of policy].
NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?
COOPER: Well, I guess it's the press' job to publicize it.
NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn't President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.
COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
KAISER: It just hasn't become an issue.
SOURCE: "Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management," ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
Of course, although Kaiser and Cooper claimed everything being manipulated by the Trilateral Commission committee was already out in the open, it wasn't.
Their interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried. It didn't become a scandal on the level of, say, Watergate, although its essence was far larger than Watergate.
US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission---the Commission had been created in 1973 as an "informal discussion group" by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Brzezinski, who would become Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor.
Shortly after Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, "We have lost. And I will quit." Lost---because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.
Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn't quit. He became Carter's chief of staff.
Flash forward again, to the Obama administration.
In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Four years before birthing the Commission with his boss of bosses, David Rockefeller, Brzezinski wrote: "[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state."
Goodbye, separate nations.
Sounds good, right? Sounds like World Peace....a totalitarian takeover everywhere where each separate culture, the art, the music, the customs, the food, all eliminated in favor of one homogenous and "equal" goo of humanity with all diversity eliminated. Where each individual is subservient to the State--as with Soviet Russia--and any dissident eliminated or worse. To continue with the article:
Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington and Technocracy Rising, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America.
Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.
For example: Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.
Here is the payoff. The US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama in 2013), who was responsible for negotiating the Globalist TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) treaty with 11 other nations, was Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral Commission. Don't let the word "former" fool you. Commission members resign when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative, they aren't there by accident. They're operatives with a specific agenda.
Flash forward one more time. Trump, who squashed the Globalist TPP treaty as soon as he was inaugurated, has been busy making staff appointments. Patrick Wood writes (2/6/17):
"According to a White House press release, the first member of the Trilateral Commission has entered the Trump administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, where he will sit on the National Security Council:
"Kenneth I. Juster will serve as Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs. He will coordinate the Administration's international economic policy and integrate it with national security and foreign policy. He will also be the President's representative and lead U.S. negotiator ("Sherpa") for the annual G-7, G-20, and APEC Summits."
Juster's duties will take him into the heart of high-level negotiations with foreign governments on economic policy.
Keep your eye on Mr. Juster. Will he take actions in line with Trump's avowed anti-Globalist stance?
Or will Juster work as one more covert Trilateral operative in the center of American decision-making?
If the answer is "covert operative," does Trump know this? Does he condone what Mr. Juster will do?
Or is this a case of secret infiltration, on behalf the most powerful Globalist group in the world, the Trilateral Commission?
I think that this is the clearest picture of what Socialism actually is.
This is the Socialist/Communist Utopia Mamdani seeks for New York. Every Socialist and Communist regime has turned out this way. Murderous and Totalitarian.
"But no!" Communism and Socialism have never been properly tried!"
"Was Fascism "Properly tried"? Was Naziism "Properly tried"? Both parties were Socialist. One was National Socialist and the other Corporatized Socialist!"
"But those were bad!!!"
"Yes, and?"
One Lay spiritual Buddhist Leader and mentor to many Daisaku Ikeda wrote a poem entitled "Sun of Jiyu over a New Land", in which he called the United Staes the Land of his Dreams. Little did he know that many of his followers had learned to actually despise the Constitutional Republic known as the United States. They began fighting for a "Pure Democracy", a society the Founding Fathers avoided because minority voters would have no rights in such a society. They instead wanted a society whose prime goal was the freedom, rights and sanctity of every citizen, hence the Constitutional Republic. Majority rule, which is the goal of a pure Democracy always tramples on the lives and rights of the minority voters. Others wanted Socialism or Communism, two political ideologies that killed between One Hundred and Two Hundred million people in just the last century.
Russian Communist Gulag. Some of these are children.
Communist Gulag. Why would students of Ikeda vote and campaign for such inhuman cruelty?
Why champion such unimaginable depravity? it is actually very simple. Nichiren Buddhists in the United States have never fully embraced the teachings. They were taught by the priests through Mr. Williams that being a true practitioner meant obedience to the leadership. Even if the leaders contradicted the teachings.
Which continues as of this writing. And when a group of people blindly follows leaders who are not connected to the teachings and the Mentor, they themselves become enemies of the teaching. Which is why, remarkably, they can not tell the difference between good and evil. This is because they are easily manipulated and have no wisdom. Which is the actual proof of having distorted the teaching by refusing to protect it.
Comments
Post a Comment