Taking Wealth From Those Who Work Hard

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

Socialism is always pushed by the billionaires. Just look at who is spending money to advertise it and push propaganda on it. It's the billionaires. Ask why.

Socialism is not about taking from the billionaires and giving it to everyone else. It is about taking from the successful middle class and giving a tiny bit of it to the poor while making sure most of it disappears. The point is not to help the poor, they need a poor class for thier class warfare strategy. The point is to get the successful middle class to feel real pain every time they see their paycheck and blame the poor for it.

Then they look at the poor who got $1 of benefit for every $10 that was taken from the middle class and see that even with all that money that is being stolen the poor are no better off. They assume that all that money was squandered by the no good, ignorant leaches.

So the middle class fights back and that plays right into the billionaires hands. They use their power in media and schools to tell the poor that the well off middle class who they label as rich are the reason they don't get more aid, can't get ahead, and even if they try the "rich" will keep them down.

If you want to take money from billionaires specifically push for laws that exclusively target billionaires. Because that is NOT what socialism is. Socialism is a tool of oppression.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Communism is; Not Socialism.

[–]Bigs 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

No, it's just the end result of socialism

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It can't be because farmer co-opts are socialism and nothing about that is state enforced "ROYAL" communism? Socialism = the means of production is owned by the workers. It is only when a plutocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, dictator, etc., enforces such isms through violence that it becomes communism or Marxist/leninism.

Before communism there was socialism and many of these socialistic sects included personal property.

[–]Bigs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Communists themselves say socialism is the stepping stone.

Humans are naturally social, and live in communities. Don't confuse that for socialism and communism. Those 2 are ideologies, brain-viri that warp the thinking and perception of their victims.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Marxist Lenninist bolsheviks do, yes, of course. Was National Socialism, based on some principals of socialism, much different than Mussoliniynism, communism? No. Many socialist thinkers were NOT communists.

Communism was a Jewish amalek ism to destroy edom and Esau. Many socialists before Marx, never preached communism and people like Proudhon among many others despised Marx and his Talmudic heritage. Of course, we now know that Talmudic Jews desired to destroy Amaleks.

THE DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM = the means of production is owned by the workers.

Anything else, where the state corporation enforces measures, is communism.

Also, no ISM is inherently bad. Most are corporations either way.

[–]Bigs 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

So what would you call the socialist countries around the world where the workers don't own the 'means of production' (and what does that even mean)?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ism's are corporations. Anyone telling you those countries are socialist are lying to you. Again, the definition of socialism is the means of production is owned by the workers. That doesn't enforce via state, the eradication of property like Bolshevik communists did to Amalek countries.

What countries today are 100% socialist? I don't know of any.

[–]Bigs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you're of the "Oh that's not really communism" stripe eh?

OK, what word should we use for overly-left-wing places like Canada? Fuck would you call that?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, because Socialism is not communism and many socialists hated Marxist/Leninism which was simply Jewish revenge. Marx was related to the Rothschilds after all and grew up in a Talmudic family. There's even such a thing as Christian Socialism but REMEMBER, all isms are CORPORATIONS. So stay off my lawn and we're fine, right?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

From Quora:

Capitalists will say that socialism is the state owning the means of production, and that the stuff about workers is just fluffy rhetoric. Capitalism is corporatism, always. How 'free'-enterprise works is besdie the point. Al states that run on capitalism incorporate themselves.

Socialists will say that socialism is the workers owning the means of production, and that the stuff about the state is just one imperfect, some say detrimental way to implement it.

Different socialists have different opinions about this. Some socialists despise Marx and Marxism.

Marxist communists think that state ownership is a necessary step to build socialism (really communism). The state will be ruled by a socialist party, which will be a massive grassroots worker movement in which everyone gets to participate. (Turns out that was a lie and Bolsheviks took over and killed the peasants and workers.) When the workers finally have firm control over society the state will be unnecessary and “whither away.”

Anarcho-communists think that state ownership is a big mistake and that workers should instead own the means of production directly communally.

Syndicalists think that trade unions should own the means of production.

Mutualists / cooperatists think that worker cooperatives should own the means of production.

Social democrats think that socialists can simply regulate the capitalist economy to serve the needs of workers. (Other socialists believe modern social democrats are really just liberals.)

So there’s not really one answer.

I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD STAY OFF MY LAWN, so I can till my soil and stop manipulating my labor!!

[–]Bigs 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well that's one thing you can say for the commie cunts; they love messing around with the language in order to control, confuse, cover and censor.

That's why I say it all comes down to a simple enough concept - are you for freedom or against it? Because no form of socialism/liberalism/otherism can survive let alone 'work' without forcing it upon people who (really fucking seriously) don't want it.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

no form of socialism/liberalism/otherism can survive let alone 'work' without forcing it upon people who (really fucking seriously) don't want

Wrong, they are all merely isms. Socialism can work if the workers own the means of production and all agree to it VOLUNTARILY and locally under a decentralized system.