Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "Fox Host Fears A Socialist Will Win Following GM Layoffs" video.

Educate yourself people. Socialism is not by definition disassociated from freedom. State control, command economy, and totalitarianism is not Socialism. Unfortunately tyrants tainted what is meant by Socialism. Look at the work of the critics of capitalism and intellectuals that founded Socialism. It's about empowering the worker, giving freedom to the laborer to labor as they please, to own their labor etc... George Orwell an acclaimed critic of Totalitarianism and State control was a true Democratic-Socialist. Einstein was a Socialist. Dr. King the civil right's leader was an advocate of socialist economic thought. The guy who wrote the American Pledge of Allegiance was a Christian-Socialist. Inform yourself and you'll find the truth the wealthy elitists and Capitalism hides, Socialism was and is the next step in freedom in a post-Capitalist society. By the way Supply side economics is the most economically inept model it's laughable they can continue this charade.
443
@recniabsal Nope. They are heroes to a brainwashed people who became subjugated to the propaganda and fear of tyrannical regimes.The Communist Party of China and Russian oligarchs have people complacent in their disillusions. Figures like Mikhail Bakunin, and Emma Goldman were disgusted at Stalinism and what became of the Bolshevik Revolution. They continued their work and are hailed today as influential to modern Anarchism. Dictatorship,command economy, and State control and ownership is inherently anti-Socialist and anti-Communist. Socialism means social ownership, not State ownership. Hence actual left wing ideologues condemn such figures as Stalin and Mao as having anything to do with the Socialist ideology.
68
exactly. But it's funny that Bernie, barely even a Social Democrat, is fear mongered by the right as a socialist lol! Bernie calls himself Democratic-Socialist, but that's a misnomer. Regardless the right is all over the place and have no clue about Socialism other than Soviet Union and Venezuela, both of which fail at being actual Socialist societies, to confuse and scare the masses.
22
@recniabsal right-wing libertarians and AnCaps are not anarchists or left wing libertarians (anti-authority, anti-capitalists) Capitalism is a system that creates hierarchy, a coercive agent, therefore it is not compatible with Anarchism.
13
@racheleaston43 I myself am a Social Democrat but I feel a kindred spirit with Socialists.
13
how they flip flop. Just a while back they attack the self proclaimed Democratic-Socialist Bernie as a Socialist Commie, when he calls for reform not a complete overhaul of the system or the abolishing of capitalism. Bernie is closer to a Social Democrat, not a true Democratic-Socialist, but it's hilarious watching the establishment change goals posts at convenience.
9
@recniabsal Stalinism is a thing and if you think his authoritarian regime and State control is compatible with Socialism and what Lenin tried to accomplish you are mistaken. True the Soviet Union was meant to be a democratic Soviet represented union of workers, but Lenin was first and foremost a revolutionary, Vanguardism was all his doing. Now command economy, specifically one controlled by the State is antithetical to Socialism and Communism. The advent of Russians catching up to the modernized world led them to this mass mobilization of workers working for a planned economy. Yet ownership was not theirs, it was the State's, they did not choose their labor, they were made to work in whatever the State commanded etc... These are facets of what is referred to as Stalinism, that which Orwell hated to the core. The Soviet Union became subject to tyrannical regimes, closer to Fascism in it's government. In Social Marxism, abolishing the State is a goal, but under Stalin the State became the power to subjugate citizens, much like Fascism. I disregard Stalin's authoritarianism as keeping with Socialist values and ideas, and I have my own disagreements with Lenin's revolutionary politics, but Stalin did not in fact carry on Lenin's vision of his Soviet Union and Communism.
8
@jbennett8030 You know before Socialists have any ideas for political government, they must first figure out it's economic organization. As in having social ownership, and go on from there as per the worker's decisions. Socialism is first and foremost an alternative to Capitalism, an economic organization, not a form of government. Ultimately it's goal is to end government and the State for self reliant worker's collective and be essentially a society of workers without obligations but to their labor and to society at large. There are some that would say with Socialism innovation and creativity are abandoned, but that actually does not seem true. Freedom of labor sounds encouraging and liberating. Truthfully all economies will move left, as Capitalism becomes less sustainable and desirable as technology automates jobs and such. Not all Socialists are Utopian, and true enough it's implausible. It's just an idea to keep striving for, as religious folk have their visions of paradise, so do Socialists. But the idea is liberating and scary. The less reliance of institutions and governments, the more self reliant and active will people have to be. Therefore many differing ideas for socialism, some radical some more practical. But let's be open minded and not necessarily bite the bait that Socialist ideas are evil and against freedom. One only has to take a look at the works of those influential to the ideology and realize, they wanted us to be free.
8
@johnmaltby134 "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society." Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949 "Why Socialism?" is an article written by Albert Einstein in May 1949 that appeared in the first issue of the socialist journal Monthly Review. Einstein was in fact further left than David who seems more of a Social Democrat. Twisting facts my ass. And well done bringing out identity politics where no one in this entire section did. In fact the further left the more concern for class conscience than any identity group. Quit playing yourself. PLEASE fact check all you want!
7
@IronskullGM Social Democracy isn't Socialist. I myself am a Social Democrat. Though I feel a kindred spirit with Socialists. However Socialist leaning ideas and policy are implemented in a Capitalist framework within a Social Democracy. This mixed economy is however not true Socialism. I'm afraid there is no successful Socialist country for no country has actually had social ownership of the means of production, abolished private property, or forego the State. There are several instances where workers tried. The most infamous attempts at Communism or Socialism have lead to tyrannical regimes not at all compatible with the Socialist ideology, which is not disassociated with a democratic polity necessarily, depending on the school of thought. Democratic decision making is a key concept however. Some of Spain had a syndicalist period however it was not long lived as Franco's Fascism made it impossible for them to act freely and soon Marxists or Socialists were eliminated as political opponents in his rise and dominance. Today there are citizen's assemblies in Argentina that aren't any political power but have an almost Anarchist platform and really just collectively bargain with government and business owners. I'm afraid we haven't seen a true Socialist society in action. The liberal West has antagonized the ideology true enough on the basis of tyrannical regimes and fear mongering. Is this the result of Capitalists influence, or ignorance of the entirety of Socialist ideology? For certain I tell you Capitalism hasn't an unblemished record either. We saw how bad it can be in the Gilded Age, how exploitative it can be, how unfree and harmful it can be to workers, how the wealth and prosperity is not even unequal but far form decent or acceptable . How it can endanger democracy as it becomes Oligarchical, a Princeton study affirms the US as such, how neoliberalism hurts the domestic economy etc... The truth is Socialism wouldn't exist as an alternative order if Capitalism were an unmitigated success.
6
@IronskullGM Have you seen Three Arrows video on this subject. He's a lot more knowledgeable about this. The Nazis did anything to serve an ethno-state. But to say they were Socialists is intellectually disingenuous or flat out ignorant. The Weimar Republic was a Social Democracy with Welfare programs in abundance before the Nazis took over. They knew better than to take that away for the public's support, only difference they only allowed it for those they accepted as German. Today no neo-Nazi supports Social Welfare unless possibly it's only for their group maybe, they are fundamentally opposed to such leftist policy.
5
@MrInuhanyou123 I'm a Social Democrat I know this. But the fear of Socialism is withered through proper education. The advent of automation will lead to solutions more left than people are used to.
4
@IronskullGM Didn't care if people were a certain race or color? That was the core their ideology. Blonde hair, blue eyes, Nordic branch of the white race called Aryans. They didn't see Iran as purely Aryan genetically, they thought Germans were the purest descendants of the Aryans that swept through the Eurasian steppes and conquering all these lands. They explicitly promoted "living space" for Germans. And they thought of Jews genetically impure, too diversified, and ideologically fundamentally opposed to the benefit of Germans. There was no attempt at social ownership of the means of production in Nazi Germany at all. They had a capitalist market economy that was guided to serve the Nazi ambition and State. They saw everyone not "Aryan" as a threat to the Third Reich so they sought elimination of any "undesirables" from their State.That's still really bad. It should be said that while Iranians ate this up of course (being called Aryans, though the people had already been calling themselves as such) there were crucial areas where Iranians and Reza Shah didn’t agree with the Nazis, especially their racial laws. While the Third Reich was actively snuffing out Jewery in Europe, Iran was experiencing what has been called its third golden age of Judaism under the Pahlavi dynasty.
3
@recniabsal No, it's just that in the US libertarian refers to right wing libertarianism, so I assumed it's what you meant not necessarily what you believe. And to be frank I'm not that far left, I'm just a Social Democrat that feels a kindred spirit with Socialists. I myself am not ready to depart from capitalism altogether, and the idea of such self reliance is scary when it comes to Socialism. But I recognize that it's actually an ideology of freedom, of the worker, of an alternative to Capitalism. Maybe one day we'll get to actual Socialism, as automation takes jobs and the private ownership becomes a coercive power to those that are not, but I'm moderate relatively in my ideology and stance. However I am studious of left-wing ideology.
2
@jbennett8030 You're telling me?! I'm a Social Democrat, which is essentially a mixed economy. It's pragmatic and thus far my stance.
1
Andrew Choi that's Social Democracy. Welfare programs are not Socialism. And yeah they're still Capitalist.
1