Mediaboss Marketing

In Marxist theory, socialism, also called lower-stage communism or the socialist mode of production, refers to a specific historical phase of economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that supersede capitalism in the schema of historical materialism. Socialism is defined as a mode of production where the sole criterion for production is use-value and therefore the law of value no longer directs economic activity. Production for use is coordinated through conscious economic planning, while distribution of economic output is based on the principle of To each according to his contribution. The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively owning the means of production and the means of their livelihood, either through cooperative enterprises or by public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus accrues to the working class and society as a whole.[1]

This view is consistent with, and helped to inform, early conceptions of socialism where the law of value no longer directs economic activity, and thus monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest and wage labor would not operate and apply to socialism.[2]

The Marxian conception of socialism stands in contrast to other early conceptions of socialism, most notably early forms of market socialism based on classical economics such as Mutualism and Ricardian socialism. Unlike the Marxian conception, these conceptions of socialism retained commodity exchange (markets) for labor and the means of production, seeking to perfect the market process.[3] The Marxist idea of socialism was also heavily opposed to utopian socialism.

Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote very little on socialism and neglected to provide any details on how it might be organized,[4] numerous social scientists and neoclassical economists have used Marx's theory as a basis for developing their own models of socialist economic systems. The Marxist view of socialism served as a point of reference during the socialist calculation debate.

Socialism is a post-commodity economic system, meaning that production is carried out to directly produce use-value (to directly satisfy human needs, or economic demands) as opposed to being produced with a view to generating a profit. The stage in which the accumulation of capital was viable and effective is rendered insufficient at the socialist stage of social and economic development, leading to a situation where production is carried out independently of capital accumulation in a supposedly planned fashion. Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels understood planning to involve the input and decisions of the individuals involved at localized levels of production and consumption, planning has been interpreted to mean centralized planning by Marxist-Leninists during the 20th century. However, there have been other conceptions of economic planning, including decentralized-planning and participatory planning.

In contrast to capitalism, which relies upon the coercive market forces to compel capitalists to produce use-values as a byproduct of the pursuit of profit, socialist production is to be based on the rational planning of use-values and coordinated investment decisions to attain economic goals.[5] As a result, the cyclical fluctuations that occur in a capitalist market economy will not be present in a socialist economy. The value of a good in socialism is its physical utility rather than its embodied labor, cost of production and exchange value as in a capitalist system.

Socialism would make use of incentive-based systems, and inequality would still exist but to a diminishing extent as all members of society would be worker-owners. This eliminates the severity of previous tendencies towards inequality and conflicts arising ownership of the means of production and property income accruing to a small class of owners.[6] The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".[7]

The advanced stage of socialism, referred to as "upper-stage communism" in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, is based on the socialist mode of production but is differentiated from lower-stage socialism in a few fundamental ways. While socialism implies public ownership (by a state apparatus) or cooperative ownership (by a worker cooperative enterprise), communism would be based on common ownership of the means of production. Class distinctions based on ownership of capital cease to exist, along with the need for a state. A superabundance of goods and services are made possible by automated production that allow for goods to be distributed based on need rather than merit.[8]

The period in which capitalism becomes increasingly insufficient as an economic system and immediately after the proletarian conquest of the state, an economic system that features elements of both socialism and capitalism will probably exist until both the productive forces of the economy and the cultural and social attitudes develop to a point where they satisfy the requirements for a full socialist society (one that has lost the need for monetary value, wage labor and capital accumulation). Specifically, market relations will still exist but economic units are either nationalized or re-organized into cooperatives. This transitional phase is sometimes described as "state capitalism" or "market socialism". China is officially in the primary stage of socialism.

The fundamental goal of socialism from the view of Marx and Engels was the realization of human freedom and individual autonomy. Specifically, this refers to freedom from the alienation imposed upon individuals in the form of coercive social relationships as well as material scarcity, whereby the individual is compelled to engage in activities merely to survive (to reproduce his or herself). The aim of socialism is to provide an environment whereby individuals are free to express their genuine interests, creative freedom, and desires unhindered by forms of social control that force individuals to work for a class of owners who expropriate and live off the surplus product.[9]

As a set of social relationships, socialism is defined by the degree to which economic activity in society is planned by the associated producers, so that the surplus product produced by socialized assets is controlled by a majority of the population through democratic processes. The sale of labor power would be abolished so that every individual participates in running their institution as stakeholders or members with no one having coercive power over anyone else in a vertical social division of labor (which is to be distinguished from a non-social, technical division of labor which would still exist in socialism).[10] The incentive structure changes in a socialist society given the change in the social environment, so that an individual laborers' work becomes increasingly autonomous and creative, creating a sense of responsibility for his or her institution as a stakeholder.

In Marxist theory, the state is "the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule. Thus, it is only in a society which is divided between hostile social classes that the state exists."[11] The state is thus seen as a mechanism that is dominated by the interests of the ruling class and utilized to subjugate other classes in order to protect and legitimize the existing economic system.

After a workers' revolution, the state would initially become the instrument of the working class. Conquest of the state apparatus by the working class must take place to establish a socialist system. As socialism is built, the role and scope of the state changes as class distinctions (based on ownership of the means of production) gradually deteriorate due to the concentration of means of production in state hands. From the point where all means of production become state property, the nature and primary function of the state would change from one of political rule (via coercion) over men by the creation and enforcement of laws into a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production; that is the state would become a coordinating economic entity rather than a mechanism of class or political control, and would no longer be a state in the Marxian sense.[12]

See more here:
Socialist mode of production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At present it is difficult to be anything but pessimistic about the future. Environmental calamities are now facts of life. The drive for profit leading to the neglect of everything that stands in the way of this has created ecological havoc in every part of the world. The history of environmental degradation is a history of greed, poverty and ignorance. By greed we do not mean the individual idiosyncratic greed that might yearn for three yachts where two would do. Rather it refers to the institutionalised greed of business that has to expand to survive, that is always looking for new products, ways to create new needs, ways to cut costs by reducing environmental safeguards or evading the enforcement of existing ones.

While ecological necessity seeks sustainability, the commodified economy needs growth. This growth can be achieved by producing more of the same things, or by making familiar commodities bigger, more complicated or with more elaborate packaging. Growth can also be achieved by inventing new ways of turning natural conditions into resources for exploitation, by finding technical means for making more and more of our lives marketable, and by investing great effort into creating new needs for consumption.

Ecology values the uniqueness of materials, places and living things, but the economy sees them all as interchangeable commodities measured on the single scale of economic values. Therefore there is no special virtue in preserving a resource, only in making profit. It may be economically rational to use up a resource totally and then move to the next investment. While ecology values diversity, economic rationality favours going for the single most profitable crop, and great quantities of a single commodity, to benefit from economies of scale.

Poverty allows environmental degradation as a lesser evil when there is the urgent need to have food or money for food. It shortens the time horizon to the immediate urgencies. It forces people to use up their capacity to produce forests, water reserves, soil quality, rare species even when they know the new problems they are creating. It encourages governments, and local authorities of poor communities in rich countries, to tolerate violations of ecological standards and even to invite the dumping of toxic materials on their land in order to gain income. Poverty is usually accompanied by a lack of control by the poor over what will happen to them.

Greed creates and maintains poverty and promotes ignorance. Ignorance justifies greed as natural and inevitable while rejecting all criticism of greed, thus guaranteeing poverty.

Over the last few centuries average agricultural yields increased as a result of mechanisation, the use of chemicalisation (including fertilisers and pesticides), plant and animal breeding, and scientific management. Although problems arose, it was widely believed that such problems were the price of progress and would be solved by the same means that created them.

The Green Revolution

1. Modern high-tech agriculture has not eliminated hunger.

2. It undermines its own productive base through erosion, soil compaction and salinisation, depletion of water resources and depletion of genotypic diversity.

3. It changes land use patterns, encouraging deforestation, draining of wetlands and planting crops according to market criteria even in unsuitable climates. It promotes a loss of crop diversity by specialisation and commercial seed production and reduces overall biodiversity through its chemical inputs and extensive monocultures.

4. It increases vulnerability to nature, especially to climate and microclimate change, pest outbreaks and atmospheric and water pollutants. This is because of large scale monoculture, the selection of varieties for maximum yield under optimal conditions and the loss of beneficial fauna and flora.

5. It makes farming increasingly dependent on inputs from off the farm. This means that cash flow becomes increasingly important as fertilisers replace natural nitrogen fixers, irrigation replaces the broken hydrological flows and storages of water, and also because pesticides replace natural enemies of pests and hybrid seeds must be bought. Dependence on external inputs increases the vulnerability to price instability and politically motivated trade policies.

6. It debases food quality as regional specialisation increases storage and transport time and crops and techniques are chosen for quantitative yield. Specialisation makes even farmers dependent on buying food.

7. It increases the gap between rich and poor. The rich are able to buy, or get credit to buy, the new inputs, establish the marketing connections and average their returns across years. The poor, however, need to be successful every year. Modern agriculture especially undermines the economic independence of women. The new technologies are usually given to men, even in places where women traditionally did most of the farming. The new technologies make the domestic chores of women, such as gathering firewood and fetching water, more time consuming. Womens diverse activities in the home conflict with the extreme seasonality of commercial monoculture.

8. It poisons people, first the farm workers who handle pesticides, then their family members who handle the pesticide soaked clothing and drink water where pesticides and fertilisers have run into ground water. Finally it reaches those who eat the crops produced with pesticides and animals raised with antibiotics and growth hormones.

9. It also poisons other species, and the environment as a whole, with eutrophication of our waterways from fertiliser runoff, accumulation of pesticides in the body tissues of fish and birds, and nitrification of the air.

The final conclusion, therefore, is that the commercialised, export oriented, high-tech agriculture is a non-sustainable successional stage in the ecology of production, like the shrubs that squeeze out the grasses and herbs of an abandoned field only to create the conditions for their own replacement by trees.

...all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free. These are the words of Thomas Mnzer, the leader of the German Peasants Revolt in the early sixteenth century quoted approvingly by Marx in On the Jewish Question What attracted Marx was Mnzers view that under the dominion of private property and money, nature is treated in such a contemptuous way that it is debased. For Marx, humanity is always part of nature In the third volume of Capital he speaks of humanity achieving freedom within the realm of natural necessity, whereby the associated producers govern the interchange with nature in a rational way under conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature. Human society must therefore build upon our natural inclinations in formulating a social order that will bring both peace and prosperity to our species.

Here is the original post:
Socialism or your money back

A great idea had been misused by small men. Himmler was the evil symbol of that. Alfred Rosenberg

National Socialism is theideology which Hitlerappliedin Germany from becoming Chancellor in 1933 until WWII destroyedthe NSDAPregime in 1945. Nazism, on the other hand, is a separate phenomenon which occurred after WWII ended: the result of Zionist Allied wartime propagandato demonize National Socialist Germany combinedwith selective confessions elicited via deception and duress during the Nuremberg Trials, which subsequently became the official version of Hitlerismfor the Zionist Allies in WWII, the backdrop to the endless stream of Holocaust fiction. This misrepresentationwas then applied by some British and American racists who saw in Nazisma reactionary solution to petty fears of their day (for Britain theloss of empire and the influx of immigrants, for America the 1960s Civil Rights movement). Thus, Nazism a malicious distortion of National Socialism originating in Zionist Allied countries, consisting of traditional Westernbigotry decorated with anachronistic Germanic symbols, and later ironically spread back(!) into Germany(e.g. NPD) has largely replaced authentic National Socialism in the worlds eyes and become the ideology of modern neo-Nazis.

If people actually bothered to calm down and think, they would realize that National Socialism, which condemns democracy, could not possibly be compatible with belief in white superiority, considering that democracy was auniquely white creation.

The easy way to distinguish neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists from the mainstream is thatboth wish that the Third Reich had been victoriousin WWII, rather than the Allies.But the easy way to distinguishneo-Nazis from authentic National Socialistsis that, whereas they (neo-Nazis) wish theThird Reichhad won because they believe the Third Reichwas more racist than the Allies, we (authentic National Socialists) wish theThird Reichhad won because we believe theThird Reich, which was already practicing integrationin the 1930s, and which despised Western treatment of colonized peoples, was less racist than the Allies, which were still practicing segregation during the same period, and which refused to admit Western wrongdoing towards the colonized.Whereas neo-Nazis want to vindicate Hitler by making racism socially acceptable, authentic National Socialists want to vindicate Hitler by showing that he actually fought against the racism of his era.

I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. Winston Churchill (Jew)

I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America. Harry Truman (Jew)

External link: Black Nazis! A Study of Racial Ambivalence in Nazi Germanys Military Establishment

Whyare scenes like thisneverdepictedin Hollywood movierenditions of Nazi Germany?

And why dontHollywood moviesmentionhow the propaganda of National Socialist Germanystereotyped the US astheKlu Klux Klan?

Indeed the attitude of the NSDAP, as seen inits celebration ofthe fact that the swastika was used by ancient cultures in almost every continent, and moreover in its various research expeditionsto distant locations (including Japan,the Himalayas, South America, etc.) to search forsigns of prehistoric Aryan settlements, was to useracial theory as a way to connect Germanswith non-Jews of other nationalities all over the world by emphasizing hypothetical common roots cutting across ethnic lines,in stark contrast to the traditional Western approach (Jim Crow, Apartheid, White Australia Policy, etc.) of using racial theory to emphasize ethnic differences. In short, it was the West that stood for racism and National Socialist Germany whichstood for non-racism the total opposite of what is popularly presented.

In order to prevent the truth getting out, Zionist media had to claim insteadthat Hitler wastrying tobuild UFO bases or findthe Holy Grail(see Indiana Jones movies for details..).

Whereas it was a standard practice of mainstream Westernmedia of the timeto disparagingly portrayblack people as subhuman apes, Hitler made a point of not onlyrejecting this view but moreover turning the negative stereotypes back on their creators. For example, two of themostcommon colonial-eranegative stereotypes about black people were that they are unhygeinic and superstitious. To the first, Hitler retorted: In the state of nature, negroes are very clean. To a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of view, they themselves are the dirtiest swine of all. They have a horror of water. To the second, Hitler retorted: A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.As such,neo-Nazis (who unanimously look down on black people as a group) are in fact much more closely aligned with the traditional Western worldview than with Hitlers worldview. Authentic National Socialists oppose ethnic stereotyping and will always defend victims of ethnic stereotyping.

In relation to Jewry, neo-Nazis see no fundamental problem with Jewish tribalism but only encourage similar tribalism among theirown groups,in contrast to authentic National Socialists who simply oppose Jewish (and all) tribalism. In relation to Christianity, neo-Nazis believe that the New Testament is the mainproblem, in contrast to authentic National Socialists who believe that the Old Testament (a.k.a. Tanakh) is the main problem. Similar inversions can be found acrossa widerange of issues. The only point on which neo-Nazis and authentic National Socialists happen to agree is anti-democracy, and even then for opposite reasons: authentic National Socialists consider the majorityof peopletoo self-interested; neo-Nazis consider the majorityof peoplenot self-interested enough!

Hitler warned us: The Jew has demonstrated an uncanny ability to sniff out like a bloodhound anything which was dangerous to him. Having found it, he uses all his cunning to get at it, to divert it, to change its nature, or, at least, to deflect its point from its goal. Schopenhauer called the Jew the dregs of mankind, a beast, the great master of the lie. How does the Jew respond? He establishes a Schopenhauer Society. Andin the same way that Jews reacted to Schopenhauer who merely exposed the Jewish problem, they have since the end of WWII even more viciouslyreacted to National Socialism that offers us a realistic solution to it.

1930s Nationalism vs 2010s Nationalism

The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. Joseph Goebbels

At thecore oftheconfusion is popular failure to recognize that nationalism in thepre-WWII period refers to a completely differentidea than whatis commonly and erroneously* called nationalism in the present day. 1930s Nationalism was about achieving total economic and politicalindependence (autarky and autonomy) for a country as opposed to bondage by international banking and finance or thrall by foreign powers. This was the origin of Hitlers German folkish state: a rejection of the Treaty of Versailles(whose contentshe bitterly describedas: Instead of general reconciliation, punishment of the defeated. Instead of international disarmament, the disarmament of the vanquished. Instead of general security, security of the victors.) and, by extension, all the assumptions of Western civilization underlying it. On the other hand, 2010s Nationalism more accurately identitarianism -is mostly about sowing division within a country between so-called indigenous-descended and so-called immigrant-descended, and agitating hostility towardsthe latter by the former.If anyone politicianof theprevious generationis tobeheld to account for promoting this attitude, it should be Enoch Powell (Gentile), not Hitler.

(* This does not include genuine present-day nationalist parties such as Sinn Fein in Ireland or the SNP in Scotland. As a matter of trivia, Arthur Donaldson of the SNP sided with National Socialist Germany in WWII.)

Needless to say, the objectives of 1930s Nationalism and 2010s Nationalismare fundamentally incompatible. In order to achieve independence for acountry, as the 1930s Nationalists intend, it is necessary to firstachieve unity within the country; in Hitlers own words: The national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our folk.This is political common sense: a country divided within isa country susceptible to influence by foreign states backing one or other side (or even all sides) of the civil strife.Even the pre-NSDAP groupswere avowedbelievers in the importance of national unification; the old DAP of Anton Drexler, for example, was founded on the idea of rapport among all members of society in Germany, burying all old quarrels and making a fresh start together, as Alfred Rosenberg recalls: Drexler was not any too well acquainted with economic problems, but he was a man with a simple, direct heart. As a toolmaker foreman in one of the machine shops of the German railroads, he had personally experienced a great many of the sorrows and cares of the German workingman, and understood that any solution to the problem depended upon the unity of the entire people. Yet national unification is, of course,the exact opposite of what the 2010s Nationalists are doing by theirspreading of distrust, stereotypingand self-segregation along ethnic lines. Hence it has often been joked that, had neo-Nazis actually lived in National Socialist Germany, they would have been together with Jews and Gypsies -among the first groupsthrown into concentration camps by Hitler.

The confusion is then worsened by many neo-Naziscalling themselves National Socialists thinking that it sounds cooler. Bottom line: if you are a racist, you are for national division rather than nationalunification, and therefore you are not a National Socialist.

This commenter gets it.

This poster gets it.

While neo-Nazism itself has remained a fringe phenomenon in the politics of most countries (the only exception so farbeing the openly racist Golden Dawn in Greece),it has indirectly benefited opportunistic racists (including the aforementioned 2010s Nationalists) who have perniciously set up anti-racists as one extreme and neo-Nazis as the other extreme, and thenpresented their so-called common sense racism as a false middle ground, thus generating interethnicconflicts exactly in accord with the Zionist agenda. While many anti-racistsbelieve that the best way to combat racism todayis to denounceHitler ever more vehemently, we disagree. We believe that the rise of neo-Nazism and racism in generalshould be courageously met with the return of a reborn authentic National Socialism, whereupon the impostor will easily be destroyed by the real thing. Thereforebe not distracted by neo-Nazi attempts to pass for authentic National Socialists with meaningless platitudes about how they dont hate people of other ethnicities; as long as they are even abstractly separatingpeopleliving in the same countryinto ethnic categories and proposing discriminatory policies based on such categories, they are neo-Nazis and no better thanthe Jews in Israel who do exactly the same thing.

Kampfers vs Mein Kampfers

National-Socialist Germany what it had evolved to be by the beginning of The First Zionist War was a modern mostly unconscious expression of the numinous, honourable, warrior ethos, and stood in complete and stark contrast to the materialism, the hubris, of the West, represented by the arrogant, profane, White Hordes of Homo Hubris. David Myatt

Why did the Zionist Allies, who on one hand suppressed so much information about National Socialist Germany (to this day many official documents of the regime remain locked away, andothershave been burned), on the other hand actively promote Mein Kampf as the one-stop sourcefor learning about Nazism?Can you figure out what is going on?

Awarenessof authentic National Socialism as a systemwholly distinct fromNazism was initially restricted to a few apolitical historians, whose main advantage overthe neo-Nazis was that they studied the real policies of National Socialist Germany post-1933 and the factional power plays within the NSDAP, as opposed toassuming that Hitler personally read and authorized every statement made or action taken by every single subdivision in National Socialist Germany (when in reality Hitler was far too busy with the major issues to monitor minor affairs), or worse, that National Socialism is defined by whatever iswrittenin Mein Kampf. It was the Allied Powers which had actively reinforced among Weimar Germans the idea that they were fellow white people(via propaganda such as 1910s-1920s Hollywood movies with their notoriously demeaning portrayals of ethnic minorities), as thisobscured the reality that the Weimar Republic itself was inall but namea Western colonial possession no different than non-white colonies such as India, Algeria, Kenya, etc.. (This is the same trick as the House vs Field trick applied to slaves in Antebellum-era US.) The masses whohad alreadybought into this viewpoint were, unfortunately, the masses whom Hitler had to say whatever it might take to get them to vote NSDAP, and it is this which accounts forthefewbigoted statements that can be found in Mein Kampf, as well as why Hitler in later yearswanted it removed from circulation, as Otto Wagener recalled.

The society which was created after the NSDAP achieved power was in many ways a compromise. Hitler himself admitted (to Leon Degrelle among others) that it would be the next generation the Hitler Youth generation which would create a genuine National-Socialist society. Organizations such as the SS and the Hitler Youth were steps toward the creation of such a National-Socialist society, and it was these organizations which implemented the ideal of personal honour, and respect for others, of whatever race and culture. As Hitler and his true followers, such as Rudolf Hess, matured in understanding, so too did National-Socialism. National-Socialism was not born, fully-developed and fully-understood, in the early years of the NSDAP it developed slowly, over several decades. Thus, as Hitler admitted, Mein Kampf was never intended to be some kind of bible of National-Socialism: it was the product of its time. David Myatt

Yetamong these historians who understood all of the above (ie. that Eurocentrism was certainly not something that Hitler started, butwas ratherthe status-quoin the Weimar Republic and which Hitler thus had to reluctantly flow withprior to achieving power), most either lacked the philosophical perception to see the abstract unifying principles underlying the policies and party decisions, ordid not wish to compromise their academic impartiality by taking on philosophical beliefs. Thus while they knew what National Socialism was not,onlythe fewest of them allowed themselves to seewhat it truly was.

External link: Gnostic Origins of Alfred Rosenbergs Thought

Theother camp claiming torepresent National Socialism were the few eccentric ideologists commonly known as esoteric Hitlerists, who unlike the historians were unafraid to make bold philosophical speculations from the outset, albeit often cloaked in mystic language. But they could not even agree with each otherwhat was canonical National Socialism, beyond shared acknowledgementthat it was nothing like Nazism. In fairness, within Hitlerscabinethad been similarly dramatic ideological divergence and corresponding personal feuds and factional rivalries, which became so bad in the later years that Hitler eventually had to stop issuing written orders to his subordinates so that they could not possess any physical documentation of his views to use as ammunition against each other. This breakdown in communication was further exacerbated by the traitor Martin Bormann, as Alfred Rosenberg recalled: It had become completely impossible to see the Fuehrer. Every attempt to do so was thwarted by Bormann, under the pretext that Hitler was too busy with war problems. This led to a humourous claim of the timethat there were as many versions of National Socialism as NSDAP members,most of whom Joseph Goebbels evaluated with pessimism: Not one of them has the qualities of a mediocre politician, to say nothing of the calibre of a statesman. They have all remained the beer cellar rowdies they always were. Among these, the Zionists of course chose the worst (e.g. the traitor Heinrich Himmler, whom everyone else in the cabinet hated) to officially represent the party.

While some communication occurred between the esoteric Hitlerists and a few honest leaders of neo-Nazi groups shortly after WWII, itquickly became apparent (to the dismay of both parties) thatbloc-conversion of neo-Nazis to authentic National Socialists was not feasible, for the very reason that the vast majority of those attractedby Nazism had exactly the wrong type of personality for National Socialism.

Dear Savitri, You simply must try to understand the almost unbelievable difficulties I face in working here with Americans they are just plain ignorant and often unbelievably dumb. George Lincoln Rockwell

I am forced to walk a careful line between what I should like to say and what the enemy would like to hear me say. Unless I deliberately sound at least halfway like a raving illiterate with three loose screws, such an interview would never be printed. This is another thing that most people fail to understand about my Nazi technique. George Lincoln Rockwell

National Socialist whopretended to bea neo-Naziin order to more easily get numerical support against Jewish power. Result: Zionist agents saw through the ruse and assassinated himso thathe would be replacedbyhis followers, who are actual neo-Nazis.(The same thing happened to Malcolm Xwho had around the same timealso revealed his rejection of racism.)

Correspondingly, those with personalities most suitable for National Socialism were exactly those most likely to be put off by Nazism andhence unlikely to study the subject deeply enough to discover the misrepresentation. This simple Zionist trick of associating a noble ideology with aselectively repellentlabel has madegaining support for authentic National Socialism extraordinarily difficult. This trick is hardly new. The same has been done with Gnostic Christianity- the true teachings of Jesus being given the label Luciferianism which is then deliberately mixed up with Satanism, with similar effects. Indeed,perhaps thesimplest way of putting it is to say that neo-Nazism is to authentic National Socialismas Judeo-Christianity is to Gnostic Christianity.

For example, authentic National SocialistsviewMuslims asallies by default, both remembering the former support of Hitlerfrom the worldwide Islamic community and seeing the continuing sacrifices of Muslims in their struggle against Zionism. Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, typically hate Muslims out of plain xenophobia, and are instead typically fans of historicalslaughterers of Muslimssuch as Charles Martel (whom Hitler wishes had lost hisbattle), Ferdinand and Isabella (Isabella the Catholic the greatest harlot in history Adolf Hitler),or VladTepes a.k.a. Dracula (no comment necessary..). When David Myatt personally converted to Islam, hoping to lead by example and reforge this much-needed alliance for the 21st century, neo-Nazis responded bycalling him a traitor and slandering him in many ways.

The sad fact is that there is little truth, little truthful knowledge, in the West, about either Islam or National-Socialism. Adherents of authentic Islam, the Islam of Jihad and Khilafah, are the natural allies of honourable, genuine, National-Socialists, and the fact that most who call themselves National Socialists neither understood nor feel this just showshow successful the Zionists have been in manipulating the peoples of the West and how successful their anti-NS propaganda has been, for this propaganda has obscured, for most peoples, the honourable, non-racist, reality of National-Socialism itself. David Myatt

Every single country thatNational Socialist Germany attackedwas a white country, including most ofthe major Western colonial powers thattogethermaintained whitehegemonyaroundmost of the world at the turn of the 20th century and whichwould have lasted to this day if not for Hitler. Yet neo-Nazis somehow manage toconvince themselves thatNational Socialism isabout advancingwhite interests..

On the other hand, many neo-Nazis have an extremelyhigh opinion ofRussia and other formerEastern Bloccountries due to their relativelygreater preservation oftradition (especially traditional gender roles). Some, who call themselves National Bolsheviks,are even fans of Stalin! Thisin stark contrast to the NSDAPs relatively low opinion of thesecountries and indeedits emphasis on defending Germany from their influence, to say nothing of Stalin being one of Hitlers greatest enemies in WWII, about whom Hitler said: Stalin pretends to have been the herald of the Bolshevik revolution. In actual fact, he identifies himself with the Russia of the Tsars, and he has merely resurrected the tradition of Pan-Slavism. For him Bolshevism is only a means, a disguise designed to trick the Germanic and Latin peoples. Neo-Nazis especially dislike being reminded that, during WWII,National Socialist Germany sided with the (mostly Muslim) Chechens(whom Stalin persecuted) against the Russians, just as Hitler himself as aschoolboy sided with Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, in his own words: When we learnt of the fall of Port Arthur, the little Czechs in my class at school weptwhile the rest of us exulted! It was then that my feeling for Japan was born. While present-day authentic National Socialists harbour no ill will towards present-day former Eastern Bloc countries, we certainly do notconsider their tendency towards traditionalism something worth admiring or emulating.

The ethnic mixture that we called Russia before 1917 and the Soviet Union thereafter has been a riddle to our part of the world. That had nothing to do with tsarism then or Bolshevism today. It simply has to do with the fact that the various peoples joined together in this monster of a nation are not a folk in our sense of the word. The average person has less worth than a bicycle. A rapid birthrate quickly replaces any losses. They have a type of primitive toughness that one cannot call bravery. It is entirely different. Bravery is a kind of spiritual courage. The toughness with which the Bolshevists defended their bunkers in Sevastapol was more a bestial drive, and nothing could be more mistaken than to assume that it was the result of Bolshevist views or education. The Russians were always like that. Joseph Goebbels

With the Russian, there is an instinctive force that invariably leads him back to the state of nature. For the Russian, the return to the state of nature is a return to primitive forms of life. The family exists, the female looks after her children, like the female of the hare. Adolf Hitler

In Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. Hes by nature a man of the steppe. Adolf Hitler

Ribbentrop, if I come to terms with Russia today I shall only attack her again tomorrow I simply cant help it. Adolf Hitler

Stalinist propaganda retorted byportraying Hitler as an Ogre-Vegetarian.

Adding further confusionare the Strasserists, who supposedly accept the authentic National Socialist portrayal of Hitler rather than the neo-Nazi portrayal, but then argue that Hitler himself is a traitor to what National Socialism was meant tobe according toits true foundersGregor and OttoStrasser, whose ideologyHitler supposedly usurped. Thus theymake a double U-turn to arrive back at what is essentiallyneo-Nazism (minus Hitler). (Strasserism itself is far from a clearly defined movement, considering that Gregor supported the Kapp Putsch whereas Otto opposed it, so nobody is really sure which Strasser brother represents canonical Strasserism..)

As if things werent complicated enough already..

The next significant mark in the revival of authentic National Socialism is recent, beginning with 21st century anti-Zionistslooking forpositive political options and culminating in the short-lived OWNP (One World Nazi Party). Its explicitly multiethnic presentation was unprecedentedly effectivein breakingthe monoethnic stereotype, and once and for all drew a definitive line between authentic National Socialists and neo-Nazis, but did not result in mass conversion to authentic National Socialism.The majority of anti-Zionistsof that time came from the post-9/11 truthseeker circles and thusprided themselvesin theirscepticism, a quality which enabled them tounravel Jewish conspiracies in the first place, but which by the same token made it hard for them to take theidealistic leap of faith necessary for an ideology as radical as National Socialism. Instead, many of them preferred tosuspect Hitlerhimself of beinga Zionist agent or even a Jew somego asfar astopromote rumours thathe was an illegitimate Rothschild.

If one enters a military operation with the mental reservation : Caution! this may fail, then you may be quite certain that itwill fail. To force a decision one must enter a battle with a conviction of victory and the determination to achieve it, regardless of the hazards. Adolf Hitler

OWNP banners (2009)

It is from this background that the true struggle the Kampfof the 21st century -continues today in the hands of a few dedicated souls. We are slowlygrowing in number, but so are the neo-Nazis, and it would seem that they are growing faster than we are. We do not have much time left. We need to become a real political force within a matter of years, or else thespirit of authentic National Socialism will be drownedbeneathan ugly delugeof the far-right, perhaps never to recover again.

Aryanism vs Foppery

I distrust officers who have exaggeratedly theoretical minds. Id like to know what becomes of their theories at the moment of action. Adolf Hitler

To us it is clear that little further progress will be made so long as the discussion continues totolerate academics interested only in endless historical nitpicking, barbarians prepared todebase National Socialism to thelowest possible level in order tosuit themselves, and cynics who join the conversation withoutactually believing that the ideologyis viable. So how should we proceed? Rudolf Hess provides asolution thatwe recommend: Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your mind. Youwill find him through the strength of your hearts!

Aryanism categorically rejects reconstructing National Socialism fromhistory alone, for we proposeit is buta name forthe onepolitical system thatwill inevitablybe expressed bytruly noble thinking.In this we resonate with the last warning of Jutta Ruediger before her death:National Socialism is not repeatable. One can take over only the values which we espoused: comradeship, readiness to support one another, bravery, self-discipline, and not least honour and loyalty. Apart from these, each young person must find their way alone. We seek not those who convert to Hitlerism from without, but those who have sought their own path from withinonly to finallyseethat Hitler walked a parallel path in his own time.Furthermore, we emphasizehow what we saw in National Socialist Germany was hardly the completed system, but only the tiniest first steps towards it. David Myatt saw this when he said:The duty the wyrd of Vindex and of the clans of Vindex is not to strive to try and restore some romantic idealized past or even be in thrall to some perceived wyrdful, often numinous-filled, past way of living, such as that which Adolf Hitler brought to Germany but rather to establish an entirely new and conscious and thus more potent expression of the numinous itself.

Wewho live today on the one hand have more detailedinformation on genetics and other subjectsthan the NSDAP ever had,andon the other handface situations of a scale and of a gravity that Hitler never had to deal with,from global resource shortages toa nuclear-armed Israel. If we are in this to change the world for the better, then the only worthwhile discussion for us isnot what National Socialism was or is, but what it should be and what it needs to be. With three words UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY -the Aryanist movementhas already begun this discussion, and we welcome all who agree with our motto to contribute to our work.

Further Information

Related Information

Read more here:
ARYANISM | National Socialism and Nazism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. Although sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is often added to distinguish itself from the MarxistLeninist brand of socialism, which is widely viewed as being non-democratic.[1]

Democratic socialism is usually distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[2] The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century,[3] while the distinction with the latter is made in that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not.[4] That is, whereas social democrats seek only to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as being inherently incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality, and solidarity, and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership in a transition from capitalism to socialism.[5][6]

Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy.[7] Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism to gradually convert the capitalist economy to a socialist one using the pre-existing political democracy, while other forms are revolutionary in their political orientation and advocate for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist economy.[8]

Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled alongside a politically democratic system of government.[1]

Some tendencies of democratic socialism advocate for revolution in order to transition to socialism, sharply distinguishing it from social democracy.[9] For example, Peter Hain classifies democratic socialism, along with libertarian socialism, as a form of anti-authoritarian "socialism from below" (using the term popularised by Hal Draper), in contrast to Stalinism and social democracy, variants of authoritarian state socialism. For Hain, this democratic/authoritarian divide is more important than the revolutionary/reformist divide.[10] In this type of democratic socialism, it is the active participation of the population as a whole, and workers in particular, in the management of economy that characterises democratic socialism, while nationalisation and economic planning (whether controlled by an elected government or not) are characteristic of state socialism. A similar, but more complex, argument is made by Nicos Poulantzas.[11] Draper himself uses the term "revolutionary-democratic socialism" as a type of socialism from below in his The Two Souls of Socialism. He writes: "the leading spokesman in the Second International of a revolutionary-democratic Socialism-from-Below [was] Rosa Luxemburg, who so emphatically put her faith and hope in the spontaneous struggle of a free working class that the myth-makers invented for her a 'theory of spontaneity'".[12] Similarly, about Eugene Debs, he writes: "'Debsian socialism' evoked a tremendous response from the heart of the people, but Debs had no successor as a tribune of revolutionary-democratic socialism."[13]

In contrast, other tendencies of democratic socialism advocate for socialism that follow a gradual, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.[14] Often, this tendency is invoked to distinguish democratic socialism from MarxistLeninist socialism, as in Donald Busky's Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey,[15] Jim Tomlinson's Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley's Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism. A variant of this set of definitions is Joseph Schumpeter's argument, set out in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1941), that liberal democracies were evolving from "liberal capitalism" into democratic socialism, with the growth of workers' self-management, industrial democracy and regulatory institutions.[16]

The Democratic Socialists of America defines democratic socialism as a movement to eliminate capitalism by evolving a "social order based on popular control of resources and production...".[17]

The term is sometimes used inaccurately and vaguely to refer to policies that are compatible with and exist within capitalism, as opposed to an ideology that aims to transcend or replace capitalism. Though this is not always the case. For example, Robert M. Page, a Reader in Democratic Socialism and Social Policy at the University of Birmingham, writes about "transformative democratic socialism" to refer to the politics of the Clement Attlee government (a strong welfare state, fiscal redistribution, some government ownership) and "revisionist democratic socialism," as developed by Anthony Crosland and Harold Wilson:

The most influential revisionist Labour thinker, Anthony Crosland..., contended that a more "benevolent" form of capitalism had emerged since the [Second World War] ... According to Crosland, it was now possible to achieve greater equality in society without the need for "fundamental" economic transformation. For Crosland, a more meaningful form of equality could be achieved if the growth dividend derived from effective management of the economy was invested in "pro-poor" public services rather than through fiscal redistribution.[18]

Some proponents of market socialism see it as an economic system compatible with the political ideology of democratic socialism.[19]

The term democratic socialism can be used even another way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism."[20] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany.

Justification of democratic socialism can be found in the works of social philosophers like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth, among others. Honneth has put forward the view that political and economic ideologies have a social basis, that is, they originate from intersubjective communication between members of a society.[21] Honneth criticises the liberal state because it assumes that principles of individual liberty and private property are ahistorical and abstract, when, in fact, they evolved from a specific social discourse on human activity. Contra liberal individualism, Honneth has emphasised the inter-subjective dependence between humans; that is, our well-being depends on recognising others and being recognised by them. Democratic socialism, with its emphasis on social collectivism, could be seen as a way of safeguarding this dependency.

Fenner Brockway, a leading British democratic socialist of the Independent Labour Party, identified three early democratic socialist groups in his book Britain's First Socialists: 1) the Levellers, who were pioneers of political democracy and the sovereignty of the people; 2) the Agitators were the pioneers of participatory control by the ranks at their workplace; 3) and the Diggers were pioneers of communal ownership, cooperation and egalitarianism.[22] The tradition of the Diggers and the Levellers was continued in the period described by EP Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class by Jacobin groups like the London Corresponding Society and by polemicists such as Thomas Paine. Their concern for both democracy and social justice marks them out as key precursors of democratic socialism.[23]

The term "socialist" was first used in English in the British Cooperative Magazine in 1827[24] and came to be associated with the followers of the Welsh reformer Robert Owen, such as the Rochdale Pioneers who founded the co-operative movement. Owen's followers again stressed both participatory democracy and economic socialisation, in the form of consumer co-operatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies. The Chartists similarly combined a working class politics with a call for greater democracy. Many countries have this.

The British moral philosopher John Stuart Mill also came to advocate a form of economic socialism within a liberal context. In later editions of his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill would argue that "as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies."[25][26]

Henry George promoted an idea called geoism, which was popularly know at the time as the "Single Tax Movement". George sought a form of democratic socialism by collecting economic rent via taxation of economic rents from land (economics) and monopolies over other natural opportunities. George believed that by removing privilege and monopoly, which he saw as private taxation, the free market would be able to allocate goods and services fairly.[27]

Democratic socialism became a prominent movement at the end of the 19th century. In Germany, the Eisenacher socialist group merged with the Lassallean socialist group, in 1875, to form the German Social Democratic Party.[28] In Australia, the Labour and Socialist movements were gaining traction and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) was formed in Barcaldine, Queensland in 1891 by striking pastoral workers. A minority government led by the party was formed in Queensland in 1899 with Anderson Dawson as the Premier of Queensland where it was founded and was in power for one week, the world's first democratic socialist party led government.[citation needed] The ALP has been the main driving force for workers' rights in Australia, backed by Australian Trade Unions, in particular the Australian Workers' Union. Since the Whitlam Government, the ALP has moved towards Social Democratic and Third Way ideals which are found among many of the ALP's Right Faction members. Democratic Socialist, Christian Socialist, Libertarian Marxist and Agrarian Socialist ideologies lie within Labor's Left Faction.

In the US, Eugene V. Debs, one of the most famous American socialists, led a movement centred on democratic socialism and made five bids for President, once in 1900 as candidate of the Social Democratic Party and then four more times on the ticket of the Socialist Party of America.[29] The socialist industrial unionism of Daniel DeLeon in the United States represented another strain of early democratic socialism in this period. It favoured a form of government based on industrial unions, but which also sought to establish this government after winning at the ballot box.[30] The tradition continued to flourish in the Socialist Party of America, especially under the leadership of Norman Thomas,[31] and later the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Upon the DSA's founding in 1983, Michael Harrington and socialist-feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich were elected as co-chairs of the organization. Currently philosopher and activist Cornel West is one of several honorary chairs. The organization does not run its own candidates in elections but instead "fights for reforms... that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."[citation needed]

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont is a social democrat and a self-described democratic socialist, and is the only self-described socialist to ever be elected to the United States Senate.[32]

In Britain, the democratic socialist tradition was represented in particular by the William Morris' Socialist League, and in the 1880s by the Fabian Society, and later the Independent Labour Party (ILP) founded by Keir Hardie in the 1890s, of which George Orwell would later be a prominent member.[33] In the early 1920s, the guild socialism of G. D. H. Cole attempted to envision a socialist alternative to Soviet-style authoritarianism, while council communism articulated democratic socialist positions in several respects, notably through renouncing the vanguard role of the revolutionary party and holding that the system of the Soviet Union was not authentically socialist.[34]

In other parts of Europe, many democratic socialist parties were united in the International Working Union of Socialist Parties (the "Two and a Half International") in the early 1920s and in the London Bureau (the "Three and a Half International") in the 1930s, along with many other socialists of different tendencies and ideologies. The socialist Internationales sought to steer a course between the social democrats of the Second International, who were seen as insufficiently socialist (and had been compromised by their support for World War I), and the perceived anti-democratic Third International. The key movements within the Two and a Half International were the ILP and the Austromarxists, and the main forces in the Three and a Half International were the ILP and the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) of Spain.[35][36] In Italy, the Italian Democratic Socialist Party broke away from the Italian Socialist Party in 1947, when this latter joined the Soviet-funded Italian Communist Party to prepare the decisive general election of 1948. Despite remaining a minor party in Italian Parliament for fifty years, its leader Giuseppe Saragat became President of Italy in 1964.

During India's freedom movement, many figures on the left of the Indian National Congress organised themselves as the Congress Socialist Party. Their politics, and those of the early and intermediate periods of Jayaprakash Narayan's career, combined a commitment to the socialist transformation of society with a principled opposition to the one-party authoritarianism they perceived in the Stalinist revolutionary model. This political current continued in the Praja Socialist Party, the later Janata Party and the current Samajwadi Party.[37][38] In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto introduced the concept of democratic socialism, and the Pakistan Peoples Party remained one of the prominent supporter for the socialist democratic policies in the country.

In the Middle East, the biggest democratic socialist party is the Organization of Iranian People's Fedaian (Majority).

The Folkesocialisme (translated into "popular socialism" or "people's socialism") that emerged as a vital current of the left in Nordic countries beginning in the 1950s could be characterised as a democratic socialism in the same vein. Former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme is an important proponent of democratic socialism.[39]

Democratic socialists have championed a variety of different socialist economic models. Some democratic socialists advocate forms of market socialism where socially-owned enterprises operate in competitive markets, and in some cases, are self-managed by their workforce. On the other hand, other democratic socialists advocate for a non-market participatory economy based on decentralized economic planning.[40]

Democratic socialism has historically been committed to a decentralized form of economic planning opposed to Stalinist-style command planning, where productive units are integrated into a single organization and organized on the basis of self-management.[41]

Contemporary proponents of market socialism have argued that the major reasons for the failure (economic shortcomings) of Soviet-type planned economies was the totalitarian nature of the political systems they were combined with, lack of democracy, and their failure to create rules for the efficient operation of state enterprises.[42]

Eugene V. Debs and Norman Thomas, both of whom were United States presidential candidates for the Socialist Party of America, understood socialism to be an economic system structured upon "production for use" and social ownership in place of private ownership and the profit system.[43][44]

Some democratic socialists call for a centralized planned socialist economy, where the state owns of the means of production and is regulated through political democracy by the people.[citation needed]

Read more:
Democratic socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many people wonder what heaven is like -- so many, in fact, that philosophers and scholars over the years have hypothesized about how heaven on Earth can be achieved. The term "utopia" was coined in 1515 by British writer Thomas More. Utopia describes a perfect place or society, where everyone is equal socially and economically.

The political and economic theory of socialism was created with the vision of a utopian society in mind. Contrary to other economic systems, there is no real consensus on how the ideal socialist society should function. Dozens of forms of socialism exist, all with differing ideas about economic planning, community size and many other factors. Despite the variations in socialist thought, every version advocates the benefits of cooperation among the people, steering clear of the "evils" of competition associated with capitalism.

So how does socialism compare to capitalism and communism? And were there ever any successful socialist societies? Is the movement still alive today? In the next section, we'll take a look at the principles of the theory.

Read the original here:
How Socialism Works | HowStuffWorks