Hi
You are right about the umbrella term. However, throwing in socialism with communism is strongly debatible association going back to the 1918 takeover by Leinin in Russia. In present day, it does the term and concept a disservice , which allows the right to to red bate. Communism is state ownership of all means of production. Socialism is a trottle on capitalism's worst excesses, to promote the greater good by taxing the higher end wages and profits to a pareto optimum level. Further, There are two kinds of anarchism a right and a left. These distinctions were clearly visible during the Spanish civil war in the 1930's. They are still in the world today. I am not taking sides here, I only wish to inform.
Respectfully
Scout
The split actually came earlier in 1914 when the liberals and democratic socialists of Western Europe voted funds for World War I, a useless destructive war that pitted working class people of one country against those of another.
Lenin and other Communists correctly pointed out that Democratic Socialists, by adapting themselves to the capitalist political system, had adopted capitalist, warlike mentality.
In Russia itself, the 2nd revolution of 1917 (Bolshevik) was prompted by the fact that the liberals and democratic socialists there similarly wanted to continue World War I despite its murderous imperialist nature.
After taking power, the Bolsheviks revealed the Sykes-Pikot Treaty which detailed the imperialist war aims of the Western European powers.
European socialists had thus become corrupted by capitalism in the same manner that our Democratic party have become.
I keep this video tabbed for these kind of comments...
Scout, I agree with most of what you say, though your description of socialism overlaps with "social democracy" -- the two definitions between which I place myself. I don't see a problem in "taking sides" if steering a mindlessly polite middle course (that won't redress the gross imbalances between classes) is the option. Comparing extreme right and left wings, at the lower end of totalitarianism there is a total blurring both of intent, and results, as seen in the very close compatibility between Hitler and Stalin. Though supposedly at opposite ends of the political spectrum, right and left respectively, the paranoically suspicious Stalin believed Hitler to be a trusted ally for nearly two years during their non-aggression pact 1939-41. Both inflicted an all-ruling personality cult over their people, whom they subdued without mercy while at the same time arguably making life more comfortable materialistically for the conforming majority.
While we argue over what we call these things the "right wing fascists push ahead" labels don't matter! Clean water - do this! New jobs- try this, be healthy- this works. American ingenuity is the only label needed.
@dan325, @OwlInASack Look in a mirror
@dan325, @OwlInASack carry on, its working
I don't think you're right. I understand socialism and communism as urban and agrarian expressions of the same thing: the state ownership of assets., What you call socialism, I call social democracy.
Thank you for your comment.
Posted by KilltheskyfairyIt’s the only way…
Posted by KilltheskyfairyIt’s the only way…
Posted by KilltheskyfairyIt’s the only way…
Posted by HippieChick58Donnie thinks he had every right to interfere with the 2020 election
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyHappy Labor Day!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyCorporate greed!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyCorporate greed!
Posted by KilltheskyfairyCorporate greed!