G. Edward Griffin: How Socialism, Communism, Fascism are All the Same
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=005cahIsSXE
Fatima: The Path To Peace Conference
http://www.fatimathepathtopeace.org/
G. Edward Griffin is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
----
Ron Paul Forum's Mission Statement:
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
7 minutes in, and I can already tell you that none of the people Griffin mentioned were communists, save for Marx. Communism is largely an ideology focused on the equal distribution of resources, while socialism is simply an umbrella term for systems advocating the public (or in some cases, state) ownership of the means of production. Fascism is ill-defined thanks to the mass differences in between the fascist socialists and fascist capitalists especially, but generally has come to mean near-total governance of aspects of society, but production is based upon cooperation between the state, the union, and the business- in other words, an authoritarian form of classical corporatism.
Communism is a form of socialism, and some versions of fascism may be a part of a more expansive definition of socialism. However, to denote all socialists as communists and fascists, or to even say that all socialists, communists, and fascists are the same would be dishonest. For example, Marx was a communist that was actually very opposed to the existence of the state, while Lenin was a state socialist (him being a communist is disputed) that thought the state must exist. Compare that to say Hitler, who still had private businesses operating (a few of which are major brands today). In the socialist camp, there was Stalin as an authoritarian socialist, with Trotsky being a state socialist advocating worldwide revolution instead of national revolution, being against such an extent of centralization of power. George Orwell and Bertrand Russel were democratic socialists, who were opposed to most state authority.
Going further, there were the the anarcho socialists, that are completely against the state, and are completely supporting of complete public ownership of basic (not necessarily personal) property. The collectivist label certainly applies to the state socialists and democratic socialists, but don't always apply to anarcho-socialists, depending on the system of social organization that they support. Indeed, some are flexible and fit the individualist and collectivist labels.
I'd further argue that rights are not natural, and are not engrained in everyone. Rather, rights are a form of restriction that protects some aspect of a person. As an example, it is often claimed that the individual has a right to life and so others do not have the right to kill them. However, who determines and enforces that? If there were three people on earth, what stops two of them from killing the other? When someone mentions a right being natural and that right is absolute, does it mean that the person who makes this statement is the moral authority over others? Rights come from an agreement of the collective, a type of contract between involved parties that may be informal or formal. Enforcement of that contract is generally left open, but in modern states, the expectation to enforce those rights falls to the government. Hence, "If the state can grant you your rights then they have every right to take them away". For this reason, I don't really think that the United States Constitution is really any different from the Soviet Constitution that Griffin mentioned.
Furthermore, the enforcer(s) of those rights must also hold some power over the individual. This either leaves enforcement up to those more powerful (in hierarchal society), or a collective of people working together for the interest of the group. Thus, the concept of natural rights isn't compatible with those that completely reject collectivism. Rather than claiming individuals have rights, it should be stated that they have natural FREEDOM, which is to not have any restriction put on them. This isn't to attack the notion of rights, I'm just critical of how people think they are formed.
Last edited by Sanguine; 12-22-2013 at 02:42 AM.
D: I like GEG and TCFJI, please don't make me cry... D;
This^^ is mostly spot on. Your theory of the origin of rights is incorrect, though. What rights we have are granted by God. All secular theories of rights are arbitrary and subjective.Originally Posted by Sanguine
What rights are those, and who said "God" (what God?) made them so? Who enforces them and actively prevents such infringements from happening?
See "The Rights Of Man". http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/ See also Murray Rothbard's writings on Natural Rights-as well as the major classical theorists of Natural Rights. Anything I write about Natural Law/ Natural Rights will be far too short to do the subject justice. I just don't have time to do that much writing.
What rights do you believe exist? Who made them so? Who enforces them and actively prevents such infringements from happening? Your post seems to imply a belief in a sort of legalism/"scholasticism", so these questions should be rather easy for you to answer.
"What rights are those" I could not comment on.
What God made what so? Rights? Well that would depend on perspective. My Rights come from my ability to recognize them as being Natural to Man. (Man of course in this instance denoting humanity) They come from my ability to rationalize and objectively realize that others wish to be treated the way I do. They come from that which is moral.
As for being Created in God's image, the case could certainly be made. God is Free. That we somehow manifested into what we are today stands as evidence of something Greater than ourselves at work. (Naturally or else wise) That theological works proclaim, and possibly rightly so, that we were made in the image of our [infinitely] Free creator, it stands to reason we are free as well. (and that ignores my natural inclination to be free, my ability to recognize my natural inclination, and my ability to objectively verbalize my natural inclination.. which may or may not be as a result of some theistic entity but more probably just exemplifies my yearning to be left the $#@! alone) Whichever way you wish to go, there is no denying there is a natural order of things.
And to paraphrase, "Some men say the Earth is round and some men say the Earth is flat but if it is flat, can an act of Parliament make it round, and if it is round can an Act of Parliament flatten it?"
You are mistaken on what Rights are. People are inherently free. As Free as birth each is and ought be.
Who enforces rights? The individual person, preferably. A diligent-in-their-duties populace, hopefully. Who else should? Should we deny or ignore the rights of some to protect others? Should we rob and steal to ensure equality as we (an inherently flawed and shortsighted entity) see fit? Where did this notion that a group of idiots stops being idiots come from? How have the wants of many outweighed the rights of all?
Whether collectively, or how majorly recognized human rights are, if they are, [recognized], means nothing philosophically. They are there, They will be there, and whether imprisoned or rotting some are Freer than 'free.' I don't think I could ever understand how you think the way you do. (the cop out of the rich tyrannizing the poor isn't going to save the despicable nature of your ways)
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
As inspiring as he was to me, I recognize that Paine missed a fundamental flaw: those rights may be claimed to be unalienable, but they are alienable so long as the protection of such is not enforced. The government is expected to protect those rights, and that leaves the people at the mercy of the government itself. This requires the people to be more powerful than the government, and the collective authority of the people isn't exactly compatible with individualist thought. What rights do I believe exist? I couldn't tell you, because your question isn't specific enough. Are you talking about America? Canada? Saudi Arabia? I could say what rights SHOULD exist, but I can't tell you which rights do exist because of how selectively they are enforced, and how inconsistent the world is.
So, because rights can be abridged, they don't exist? Is that what you're saying?
This is hilarious. Socialists moan and groan about how terrible capitalism is because capitalists can potentially use their wealth to buy force and do mean things to people. But when it comes to Teh Authoritah using their power to do mean things to people, suddenly there are no natural rights, there is only natural freedom to exercise whatever power you can grasp in your dirty little paws...
By all means, do carry on about the fine little philosophical differences between communists, socialists and fascists. Because you more than anyone have now clearly defined how they're all the same.
"Complexity is the essence of the con and the hustle."
If it walks like a duck and quacks, more than likely it's a duck.
Rights are a contract of protection, and when rights aren't enforced, they don't exist. Rights only exist when you fight for them. But, I didn't say that there shouldn't be rights, I just said that rights aren't natural. I support the establishment of rights, for while they are restrictive, this restriction is not from dominance, but from voluntary agreements between equals. As I said:
Last edited by Sanguine; 12-22-2013 at 02:41 AM.
In that case, what you're saying is that it isn't possible for citizens to have rights at all in socialism, communism or fascism. Capitalism makes voluntary agreements between equals possible; none of these other systems permit it.
I'm aghast as I watch the Sunday morning blather because all of these progressive talking heads who were insisting that the health care system that we had must be broken, and Washington had to micromismanage a new system because not everyone could get coverage at a price they liked, and this handful of people had to be taken care of, are now saying that it's 'only' a quarter or a half of a million people who were happy and had the coverage they wanted lost it, and they just don't matter. My how quickly Juan Williams goes from warm and fuzzy and inclusive to dumping hundreds of thousands in the ditch and leaving them there. And still the underwriters pay billions to the politicians and get ready for their bailouts which are surely now only a year away.
Yeah, socialism, communism, and fascism are exactly the same thing, no matter how much one tries to draw careful little distinctions between them. They are a denial of natural rights and natural freedoms. They are not liberty. And there it is.
Last edited by acptulsa; 12-22-2013 at 10:41 AM.
>Implying that you can't make agreements in socialism
>implying you can't make agreements in communism
Oh, what's the point in arguing? All you're going to do is repeat the same point, or try to call corporatism socialism because you don't understand what socialism is, and fear it much how cavemen would fear fire. That's why you haven't actually tried to draw any parallels or actually refute what I said.
Because hurr durr it might surprise you to know this, but virtually every socialist I know was disgusted with Obamacare right from the start. I was included. Instead of saying "lul deyre all duh saem", how about you actually make a point to back yourself up? I'll help you out here by giving you a couple tips:
Obama isn't a socialist, he's a centre-right authoritarian like Bush and Romney. To compare, Ron Paul's a far right moderate, and Rothbard would be far-right libertarian.
Read what socialism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/socialism If you're going to argue, know your opponent. That's why Griffin had a "bad guy" shelf, and it's why I own texts from my own set of "bad guys".
You're right. You can make an agreement in a socialist society. 'A' and 'B' can agree to steal "C's" $#@! through the strong arm of the government. (and you and your ilk would consider it legitimate)
People who fear a more collectivist society do so rightly.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
>Implying a govrnment has to exist in socialist society.
It's almost as if you didn't rad a $#@!ing thing I said. Even more ironic is that you've got a quote from an individualist anarcho-socialist (you know, like myself) in your signature. Granted, Spooner was a market socialist (which I'm not), but the delicious irony still stands.
Almost as if? Why would I? Then I'd have the urge to point by point debunk your nonsense, you'd act as if you didn't see it and you'd continue on. In any case I'll respond in further detail later. I hate typing on my phone. I'm particularly curious about your assertion of a society being socialist without a government. I'll have some questions later. (Which will almost certainly be ignored)
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
This is what I was curious about. You listed in another thread what government was to do. It included healthcare, housing, food (IIRC) and a few other things. You mentioned in even another thread that the "real" definition of anarchy was public control of the means of production in a stateless society. Specifically the factories and things of that nature. I am curious how your anarcho-socialist society would provide for everyone without resorting to the usual provoking-thoughts-of-government schemes. That is, a monopoly control over the issuance of currency, the taxation of the people, and the empire to enforce both. (at home and abroad) Please give me as vivid a picture of anarcho-socialism as you are capable of. I am particularly curious as to how you would provide for the people. What means or methods would be taken to ensure everyone had access to affordable healthcare under your ideal society? What means or methods would be taken so that everyone had a house? And finally, what means or methods would be used to feed everyone?
I usually do and in fact have read most of what you posted in response to others. Generally speaking there is usually one sentence that irks me and I resign to shaking my head. It's not just you though, if that is any consolation.It's almost as if you didn't rad a $#@!ing thing I said.
Spooner has written some delightful things. I'm sure it would shock your senses to know I quote John Adams as well. And Madison, and Jefferson, and Orwell. Not that they were all socialists, simply that I don't agree with everything they stood for. Frankly I'm not as read in Spooner's works as I wish to be. I ordered a few of his works from abebooks and they never sent them. Disappointing.Even more ironic is that you've got a quote from an individualist anarcho-socialist (you know, like myself) in your signature. Granted, Spooner was a market socialist (which I'm not), but the delicious irony still stands.
Hell, I've even begrudgingly quoted Reagan when the opportunity arises. You have to recognize who the target audience is and what they will respond to. Before Spooner my signature was Ryan Harvey, who I would imagine shares your views. Musicians are almost always communist-lite.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Can you? Do they all have to be 'agreements' with The Authority? Are agreements between individuals or does it all process through The State (or whatever administers this socialism) with appropriate sales tax deducted? Or are you talking about socialism that allows a little capitalism around the edges? If so, is that even socialism at all, or is it just something a socialist entity might tolerate?
I see what you mean. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with you, is there, if all you can do is make straw men and change terms to the point where Ron Paul is moderate, Obama could make no socialist policies because he's a fascist and facists can't make socialist policies, and bend the definition of 'from each according to his ability and to each according to his need' to the point where it can be done with no autoritarian central planning committee...
My word, it's as if you haven't read anything I previously said. Refer back to post #2. Socialism does not require a state, and calling all socialists authoritarian based on the principles of the Soviets and their puppets would be like calling capitalists authoritarian because of Pinochet. Go educate yourself on socialism and come back to debate.
Ron Paul is effectively a moderate in an authoritarian-anarchist scale. He's not fully a minarchist because he's got an inconsistent position, rather taking a transitional position in policy not affecting the rich. His desire to enforce the gold standard again also indicates that he is at some level, still a statist, and his positions on adoption by same sex couples, and is more supportive of state rights over federal government, but emphasizes on state rights. Rather, Paul's more of a Constitutionalist than anything else (and admittedly a more honest one than many others that call themselves such), and supports the ability of the state's legislative authority. Yeah, that makes him a moderate.
This claim makes me seriously doubt that you really understand anything about Ron Paul ...
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-24-2013 at 12:35 AM. Reason: seriously makes -> seriously doubt
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Bloop.
...that while I'm studying up my fifty shades of gray socialism, you need to be studying up on your Ron Paul before said future debate. Assuming I find you worth my time and trouble.
But don't count on it. You don't seem interested in debating, you seem interested in hanging labels on things. You go around saying that a beard is a beard, but a beard is composed of hairs between three and four inches long, and a beard of hairs less than an inch long is this other, unrelated thing called a fark, and a beard with hairs between one and two inches long is a snuzzle, and a beard with hairs between two and three inches is a muggle, and a Duck Dynasty beard is some other thing entirely, and when someone says but they still all have fundamental properties in common--i.e. they are all comprised of facial hair, you get testy.
And, of course, you hang the things you like with pretty sounding labels, and the things you don't like with ugly sounding labels, and as soon as you see which way the winds of favor are blowing concerning, say, Obama, you switch him from a pretty label to an ugly label and wash your hands of him. And even when you can get someone to play at hanging labels with you, you get upset because they hang labels based on true facts (like Ron Paul favors competing currencies) and you hang labels based on the lies msnbc passes off as facts (like Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, which he does not do).
And best of all, you call this proto-propagandist self-training debate, and making interesting conversaton, and winning. It might get you a job on NBC some day, if you ever get any good at it. But I have news. Around here, No Body Cares.
Now, I'm ready for you to get into the Christmas Spirit by popping up and denying that all beards are made of facial hair because you saw a Santa at the mall whose beard was made of dacron or nylon or something, and get upset when I point out that a false beard is (by name and by definition) not a beard. Oh, joy.
And it looks like I owe the Banana Republican some rep again, soon as I spread some around (among the non-socialists).
He couldn't do it even if he were alive and willing to actually work at it. Achieving the impossible is a mighty tall order for a dead man.
Last edited by acptulsa; 12-24-2013 at 07:38 AM.
Lol if I went on NBC, I would be fired after completely $#@!ting on them. Ron Paul advocates a gold standard, he just said that there was an era with the one the US previously had. Obama doesn't get the label of socialist because he isn't a socialist. Stalin was a socialist (a pretty ugly type of one), but so was Lysander Spooner. I'm labelling things because you simply mischaracterize broad terms and make generalizations of the various positions within them, and further conflate them with another ideology. To say it simply, it's not my fault that you can't tell the difference between Tolstoy and Hitler.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues...ral-reserve-2/
Sanguine, Ron Paul advocates for the market to decide what they wish to use as currency. He proposes that people be free to trade in whatever they choose. Whether that be Bitcoin, Federal Reserve Notes, gold, or tulip bulbs. He suspects, and is probably correct in thinking as much, that if given the choice, whether to be paid in depreciating paper or having the option of being paid in gold, i.e. the taxes on gold and the legal tender laws repealed, that people would choose money over IOUs. As far as enforcing a gold standard, government should be out of the business of money completely.
He doesn't have a desire to force people to transact using gold. End the Fed explains his position nicely. The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin explains the origins of the Fed. And What Has Government Done to Our Money by Murray Rothbard concisely analyzes the effects of government meddling with regards to currency. The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul has a section dedicated to his economic views as well. I strongly would encourage you to read the entirety of that book. Andrew Napolitano's, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government is Wrong is another great that sufficiently explains our monetary policy and the problems within. It documents the absurdity of legal tender laws and explains proficiently the inherent immorality within our funny money monetary system.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Let's see. One lived in a monarchy and wrote novels back before anyone was trying socialism, and the other hung out with Stalin (for a while) and called the system he set up socialism by name (but was admittedly a known liar).
Did I get that much right? Did I earn the right to be one tenth as arrogant as you?
"May"? Or they are forced? Like I mentioned in another thread, in the society most here advocate for, you'd be free to do that if you wished. I'm just curious that if in the society you advocate for, if I'd be able to live as I wish? (that is, be left alone)
I'll read what you linked as I get the chance. Briefly skimming the material, I would clearly not be one to subscribe to the model. It screams totalitarian. Perhaps not at first, and that is a real "perhaps", but eventually the information the computer system has, which will be accessible to various people will be exploited. I'd rather regress from the so called greatness of the 21st century. Maybe I'm just a simpler man. This idea that having every aspect of your being linked to a computer as positive I'd thoroughly reject. One manufactured event away from unimaginable tyranny. Technology can be used for good, yes, but it will also be used to keep you in your stall. Computerized handheld machines, dictating jobs to those it analyzed as proficient is so incredibly anti-human I don't know where to begin. Of course this even ignores the point of, what if I don't want to do the job the computer picked me to do? Shall I be forced because a majority said so? Is that legitimate? I'm sure that if I read the entirety of what you linked, I'd find a multitude of things I strongly reject or abject to. Big Brother 2.0 is what it sounds like to me.Coupling this with the open-source networking technology of the modern world results in a community supporting itself, and strengthened by the sharing of ideas. Alternativly, there may be the syndicalist types of organization, which focuses specifically on industries, and then there's the technocratic, which is division of resources by a central computer or system of that sort. Spooner's market-socialist anarchism promoted self-employment and was more individualistic in outlook. Basically, it's the promotion of the workers rather than the owners. If I may suggest reading material for the technocratic society, this is a society I fully support:
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
I don't see too many socialists around these parts. I do not advocate that as I am very opposed to the dominance of one person over another. Anarcho-capitalist society is very prone to setting up regional monopolies in the absence of the state, much like how drug cartels and criminal gangs do.
I don't see how that's totalitarian at all. People just request what they want and do stuff with it. The only reason it may be denied or limited is due to scarcity. Perhaps you read it wrong, as the handhelds don't dictate jobs, they are means for the citizens to vote, raise issues, govern themselves, and find jobs for when they are bored. There's nothing about tracking and recording people, save their material requests.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us