Mediaboss Marketing

Oswald is credited with the assassination JFK as the presidential motorcade travelled through Dallas, Texas on Friday 23 November, 1963. The then 24-year-old initially escaped the police.

He was later tracked down to a theatre where he was arrested and taken to Dallas Police Headquarters.

Two days later, on Sunday 25 November, while Oswald was being escorted out of the station, local nightclub owner Jack Ruby fatally shot him.

It was but one bizarre event in a series of questionable happenings in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In 1959, having served with the US Army for a short time, Oswald acquired a hardship discharge based on the need to support his mother.

Entirely randomly, he then took a boat to Europe, first to Finland, moving on to the Soviet Union.

On reaching Moscow, Oswald publicly announced he would provide Russia with US radar secrets.

From this point on, multiple divisions of US intelligence offices kept files on him.

Just two years later, Oswald, rather hastily, decided he wanted to return to the US.

JUST IN:Narcos: Who is Barry Seal? Is Barry Seal a real person?

This was despite having denounced the country and revealing to his brother, Robert, that he intended to never return to America.

He claimed to have fallen out of love with the Soviet Union and its rigid communism not allowing any recreational pastimes.

But, during the 2013 documentary, Killing Oswald, retired Major and author of Oswald and the CIA, John Newman, revealed how Oswald may well have been working with the US government, being called back for duty.

Mr Newman claimed: Oswalds decision to come back home may have not been his decision at all.

DON'T MISS

Kim Jong-un health: North Korean leader exposed in 'red flag' incident [LATEST]CIA secrets: Decisive moment agency began brainwashing exposed [UPDATE]How FBI agent claimed Lee Harvey Oswald was 'one of ours'[ANALYSIS]

If hes actually there on a mission he would have been told its time to come back home.

This whole time, his files were maintained in the counter intelligence area of the CIA.

It was in fact the mole hunting unit.

The story they had no interest in him, they were contacted and did know anything about him, doesnt add up.

Despite the CIAs close monitoring of Oswald, when he returned to the US, he seemingly slipped through their grasp.

On returning in 1961, Oswald was questioned little about his involvement with the Soviet Union or about his claim to revealing radar secrets.

To its proponents, the instance appears to further prove Oswald was a double agent.

Shortly after during the documentary, Professor Joan Mellen, described an event that suggested Oswald was working directly with the US authorities.

She said: When Oswald first arrives in New Orleans, what does he do?

He goes to 544 Camp Street or 531 Lafayette Street depending on which door you go in.

He goes into the office of Guy Banister, former special agent in charge of the FBI field office in Chicago now running a detective agency in New Orleans as a CIA operative of high level.

And, he asked for a job.

One day, the secretary said to Guy Banister look, theres your friend Oswald giving out pro-Castro leaflets downstairs.

And Guy Banister brushed that aside.

He said: Hes one of ours.

Oswald was doing his best to keep up his cover.

The CIA had a plan to blame Castro for the assassination and to make Oswald the agent of Fidel Castro.

See original here:
JFK bombshell: How Lee Harvey Oswald might have been TOLD to return to US - Express.co.uk

Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods (i.e., making money) in a society. Both aim to fix the problems they see as created by a free-market capitalist system, including the exploitation of workers and a widening gulf between rich and poor.

But while socialism and communism share some basic similarities, there are also important differences between them.

Socialism emerged in response to the extreme economic and social changes caused by the Industrial Revolution, and particularly the struggles of workers. Many workers grew increasingly poor even as factory owners and other industrialists accrued massive wealth.

In the first half of the 19th century, early socialist thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier presented their own models for reorganizing society along the lines of cooperation and community, rather than the competition inherent in capitalism, where the free market controlled the supply and demand of goods.

Then came Karl Marx, the German political philosopher and economist who would become one of the most influential socialist thinkers in history. With his collaborator Friedrich Engels, Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, which included a chapter criticizing those earlier socialist models as utterly unrealistic utopian dreams.

Marx argued that all history was a history of class struggles, and that the working class (or proletariat) would inevitably triumph over the capital class (bourgeoisie) and win control over the means of production, forever erasing all classes.

Communism, sometimes referred to as revolutionary socialism, also originated as a reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and came to be defined by Marxs theoriestaken to their extreme end. In fact, Marxists often refer to socialism as the first, necessary phase on the way from capitalism to communism. Marx and Engels themselves didnt consistently or clearly differentiate communism from socialism, which helped ensure lasting confusion between the two terms.

Communist propaganda from China entitled 'Be Ready to Defend or Fight,' circa 1950s.

Buyenlarge/Getty Images

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central governmentthe statecontrols all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

In his 1875 writing, Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx summarized the communist philosophy in this way: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. By contrast, socialism is based on the idea that people will be compensated based on their level of individual contribution to the economy.

Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.

Led by Vladimir Lenin, the Bolsheviks put Marxist theory into practice with the Russian Revolution of 1917, which led to the creation of the worlds first communist government. Communism existed in the Soviet Union until its fall in 1991.

Today, communism exists in China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnamalthough in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires.

Likewise, no country in history has achieved a state of pure socialism. Even countries that are considered by some people to be socialist states, like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have successful capitalist sectors and follow policies that are largely aligned with social democracy. Many European and Latin American countries have adopted socialist programs (such as free college tuition, universal health care and subsidized child care) and even elected socialist leaders, with varying levels of success.

In the United States, socialism has not historically enjoyed as much success as a political movement. Its peak came in 1912, when Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs won 6 percent of the vote. But at the same time, U.S. programs once considered socialist, such as Medicare and Social Security, have been integrated into American life.

Democratic socialism, a growing U.S. political movement in recent years, lands somewhere in between social democracy and communism. Like communists, democratic socialists believe workers should control the bulk of the means of production, and not be subjected to the will of the free market and the capitalist classes. But they believe their vision of socialism must be achieved through democratic processes, rather than revolution.

Read the original here:
How Are Socialism and Communism Different? - HISTORY

They want to punish and steal from the rich and successful.

Socialism is almost the same as communism; both are bad

Dont bring feelings to a fact fight. Once again thank you Mr. Rock for validating my points. Also, thanks for the insults and failing to counter any points.

Communism is often referred to as revolutionary socialism; the key difference is the need for a violent uprising of the lower class against the middle and upper classes. The killing fields of Cambodia are an example of such an uprising. One point five to two million dead, often with pick-axes and other farm tools to save bullets. Socialism is communism with less bloodshed to get there. Both lead to misery and destitution when other peoples money runs out.

I find it insulting that the workers once risen up would need the communist elite to rule them. It is reminiscent of helter skelter. Charles Manson planned a race war and once the blacks had won he would lead them. The contempt for the intelligence of the workers or the blacks is blatant in such ideologies.

Mixed economic systems are not state-owned economies, meaning the government doesnt own the means of production. By definition it is not a socialist system. The state owning the means of production is a definitive part of socialism. Mr. Rock may want to look at liberalism as an ideology. (The textbook definitions, not the modern day usage.) Even the libertarians believe in a limited government involvement in natural monopolies. Socially conscious government programs are not, and do not, make socialism.

Governments are institutions and are incapable of interpersonal relationships. If you want to be loved and cared for I would suggest a dating app.

The only socialists I have met do not want to help the common man. They want to punish and steal from the rich and successful. Free stuff is not free as it was taken by force from another.

S. Innis

Duncan

Letters

See the article here:
Socialism is almost the same as communism; both are bad - Cowichan Valley Citizen

Adolph Hitler and associates admired fascism under Mussolini in Italy, particularly the state control of industry, and sought to emulate Mussolini with Germanys brand of what they would refer to as National Socialism. Nazism, like the CCP, outlawed all opposition parties.

Venezuela is a modern example of the horrific effects of one-party socialism on the people and economy of a nation. With all opposition parties outlawed, no checks and balances exist. The results are predictable and deadly.

Marx, the father of communism, decried what he called the "bourgeois" family of father, mother and children. He believed family helped foster ideas about private property and should be abolished. Our American founders established the antithesis of Marx's communism. In declaring independence, Thomas Jefferson proclaimed to the world that God gave the individual unalienable rights to be protected by government. Included in basic human rights, alongside life and liberty, was the "pursuit of happiness."

Jefferson had followed 17th-century political philosopher John Locke's three basic rights of "life, liberty and property." Pursuit of happiness is predicated upon right to private property, but going beyond into moral decisions about the use of life, liberty and property. The American system recognized limitation of government, the primacy of the individual and family, and the importance of religion, all detested by Marx and therefore the CCP. Importantly, our founders stressed the importance of checks and balances to the party in power.

Continue reading here:
COMMENTARY: Communism to blame - The Tand D.com

The leader of the Morena party wants to carry out a census of the rich to find out who concentrates the wealth and equalize everyone socially. Ramirez Cuellar proposes to empower the Inegi to access the patrimonial and real estate information of all Mexicans

MEXICO CITY (Times Media Mexico) No one in Mexico had forgotten when in 2019, Luciano Concheiro Brquez, the undersecretary of higher education at the Ministry of Public Education, said: To transform Mexico, it is necessary to be a communist. Especially when it comes to Lpez Obradors Fourth Transformation against predatory capitalism. (SIC)

Alfonso Ramrez Cullar, national leader of Morena, has released an analysis prepared by his party, MORENA, to make constitutional changes. The magnitude of the economic and health emergency demands it. The starting point and the outcome of the new rules of social coexistence are, without a doubt, the issue of welfare. Said the MORENA politician.

The Welfare State, as a concept and purpose, must be explicitly stated in our Magna Carta, pointing out the universal protection systems derived from the constitutional mandate, he stated. These are the new systems that transcend partial programs and synthesize and ensure inescapable rights for all Mexicans. It is a matter of agreeing on the new states construction that will emerge from the crisis we are suffering. It seeks to give national certainty of what will be the new normality.

Alfonso Ramrez Cullar, presidente de Morena, present un paquete de reformas para enfrentar los efectos negativos de la crisis sanitaria

Entre las propuestas est dar facultades al Inegi para que mida la concentracin de riqueza https://t.co/ZWmjpNviNH

The Federal Executive, the Congress of the Union or the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation must integrate. All the state and municipal governments, the organisms of workers and businessmen, the political parties and the institutions of higher education in this great dialogue, Ramrez Cuellar pointed out.

As a second point, Ramirez proposes giving the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Inegi) the constitutional power to measure the concentration of wealth in our country. Morena party leaders wants to carry out a census of the rich to find out who concentrates the wealth and equalize everyone socially. Ramirez Cuellar proposes to empower the Inegi to access the patrimonial and real estate information of all Mexicans

As a third point, Ramrez Cullar noted the fiscal progressiveness. All Mexicans should contribute to the expenses of the state and the financing of the Welfare State. He said. Fiscal progressivity will have to be applied to property, wealth, income, CO2 emissions, and damage to health.

Historical experience shows us with a stubborn conviction that the Welfare State can only be effective and become a reality when those who have more pay more, he added. He then proposed the constitution of a Fiscal Council: an organism with autonomy and professionalism and dependent on the Congress of the Union that measures and permanently evaluates the quality of the income and expenses of the Mexican State. The country requires an agency that has the responsibility to show every year if contributions and expenditures are benefiting the most vulnerable sectors of the population. The organism will have an obligation to report whether the quality of public spending is contributing to reducing inequality between regions and whether it is being used to generate wealth and national prosperity. Ramirez Cullar stated.

El dilogo y el Acuerdo de Unidad y de Solidaridad Nacional tienen que reconstruirse. La magnitud de la emergencia econmica y sanitaria as lo demanda. El punto de partida y el desenlace de las nuevas reglas de convivencia social es, sin lugar a duda, el tema del Bienestar. pic.twitter.com/WfdtgZrLv7

Finally, he called for greater strength and powers for the Federal Commission for Economic Competition (Cofece). The concentration and power that companies have in a large number of markets that produce and distribute the goods and services that are basic to the population have become one of the most important sources of social and economic inequality between regions and the various segments of Mexican society he accuses.

In addition, he added, the Competition Commission must be given higher powers to measure the impact on the levels of welfare suffered by Mexicans to strengthen a joint action in the design of policies that ensure access to goods and services with fair prices.

Mexico is dangerously on the edge. Every day becomes more explicit where AMLO wants to go.

The Yucatan TimesNewsroom

comments

Read the rest here:
Mexico dangerously on the edge: The ghost of communism. - The Yucatan Times