Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 28, 2012 - Jonestown was a microcosm of their intended world government, It was socialist, and it was Luciferian. Jim Jones taught that his followers were, in fact, God. He claimed he was charged, however, with being their God on Earth until they fully came to terms with their deity. The deeper reality is that it was a means by which to bring a lot of mentally ill and underprivileged people out to the jungle and kill them en masse. ....

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 28, 2012 - ... Hopefully this example makes clear what I am referring to when I mention the "levels" of things. "By your logic, these Luciferians must be working towards a better tomorrow because that's what they claim." i was referring to the fact that they spoke of socialism constantly as something that they had done, were doing, and intended to increase the magnitude of. I was not stating that they simply talked about socialism. THE SOVIETS WERE SOCIALISTS!!!...

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 28, 2012 - "We, the Soviet people, are for socialism. We want more socialism and therefore more democracy." -Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - Um, no, that doesn't make them socialist. Any political philosophy has to be defined by the actions taken by the institutions ruling the nation. He and other socialist leaders, and this is also true of china, spoke also of democracy, but that was a sham. But they constantly referred to it in speeches and addresses. Their actions were antithetical to the socialist mindset, and therefore nullifies them as socialists. They used it as a term behind which the downtrodden could rally.

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - The Nazis also claimed to be Socialists, but there was no Socialism in the Nazi regime, and they were actually antagonistic to Socialist regimes such as Anarchist Catalonia in Spain. The Nazis used the term socialist in the same way that the Soviets did; just a buzzword to make the idiot masses think they actually cared. That doesn't make them socialists, it makes them fascists. There is a very real difference between the two, I suggest you learn it.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - How would you know what they were doing when they didn't allow anyone in to find out what they were doing? Don't you think someone would have contradicted them when they claimed to have instituted socialism if they hadn't? Are you aware that different people define socialism in slightly different ways? For example, unlike your definition, my definition of socialism has more to do with the government controlling the means of production as opposed to the working class controlling it directly.

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - They had secrets, they aren't secrets anymore. Plus, many did protest the Soviets calling themselves Socialist. Hundreds took to the street in East Germany singing "L'Internationale" in protest. The Free State in the Ukraine was founded as a true socialist state in opposition to the Soviet union. George Orwell protested the actions of the Soviets while fighting in an anti-Soviet Socialist guerilla in spain. Not to mention that Anarchist (Socialist) Catalonia's know antagonism with the USSR.

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - Additionally, my definition is based in actual real world socialism, yours is based in American, Carter era Cold war Red Scare propaganda. My definition is from the birth of socialism in France, yours comes from people who's only claim to socialism was that the word was on their stationary. You can't just change the definition of socialism because the real one is more convieient for your argument. You can't just have your "own definition" of an objective, verifiable, real world phenomenon.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - Okay, so when there are proposals of socialized health care here, as there already is in Canada, are these not really socialist according to your definition?

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - No, they're Social-IZED not Social-IST. It's like how the stories of King Arthur are Christian-IZED, but not Christian. Maybe they're made by a Socialist, or with Socialism in mind, but individually no they are not socialist. A better example might be how Karl Marx considered the "dictatorship of the Proletariat" as a step towards Communism, without considering it Communism in and of itself. A method to reach an end point (however flawed) is not the same as the end point itself.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - Didn't Mussolini invent the term proletariat? Anyway, how would placing the means of production in the hands of the working class have anything to do with government controlled health care? Also have you seen the video by FolkPhotographer in which he talks about how his wheelchair is out of service, and that he's being denied medical care by the Canadian system?

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - To answer your questions:1) No. Marx and other Communists used it 100 years before Mussolini, and it's originally Roman; "proletarii"2)Nothing, that's what I said. It isn't socialist in and of itself. I said a Socialist might use it, but that doesn't make it socialist.3) I haven't, but even if I had it would be irrelivant to this discussion because I just toldyou that while Public Healthcare is Socilaizing, it isn't Socialism et al.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - "2)Nothing, that's what I said. It isn't socialist in and of itself. I said a Socialist might use it, but that doesn't make it socialist." How could such a system come about within socialism if socialism is only a matter of placing the means of production in the hands of the working class? If socialism as you define it is all that a socialist seeks, which is what you seem to be on the one hand implying, then where do these non socialist matters come into play?

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - "They had secrets, they aren't secrets anymore." What, you mean like the leadership taking money, plans, technologies, etc., from western Freemasons?

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - I'm not getting into conspiracies about the Freemasons. Things such as public health care can be a caveat to a person's socialist leaning, part of a greater philosophy in which that person includes socialism among other things, or simply seen by that person to make things easier to institute a socialist system. For example, if people don't have to worry about making money to pay medical bills, you're more likely to fight unfair working conditions and eventually towards a socialist system.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - It's amazing how no one seems to make the connection between the articles found in the USSR with the Roman Catholic eye in the triangle on them, and the fact that Freemasons were "also" aiding the Sovet Union.

SonofSethoitae Says:

May 29, 2012 - Interesting, but irrelevant.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - Your form of socialism isn't going to go anywhere anyway, unless they can use it to bring in their vision, so I'm unconcerned with it having any impact upon anyone's life. I'm sure you know full well that there hasn't really been a large revolutionary movement since Henry VIII. The Vatican demonstrated infuriating tenacity and finally Britain fell at the hands of the Vatican formed united States. This should be clear to anyone familiar with the history of England from Henry VIII to 1776.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - No, it's not irrelevant. if their form of government is what is defined as socialism by most, then that is what is normatively defined as socialism, regardless of what anyone else defined it as, even if they defined it first. That system, which they called socialism with the intention of eventual complete collectivism, is what people are largely opposed to.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - ...aside from the Vatican, of course, which seeks the end of national sovereignty, etc., etc., making it all the more clear that I have been correct as to who has always been the head of Luciferianism.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - The way to fight unfair work conditions is to make use of your fucking liberty and stop working for those you believe are treating you unfairly.

Tsadi9Mem9Khet9 Says:

May 29, 2012 - You are making it clear that despite whatever discrepancy there might be between your definition of socialism and the Soviet or Nazi definition, yours shares the quality of unpleasantness with theirs. You do not believe in liberty, not even freedom to own a business without being persecuted by idiots who choose to portray companies as oppressive rather than realize that they are not being forced to work for them. Socialism lacks morality and is completely pathetic.