SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Here we are, two days after The Morgatory Blizzander took exception to one of my submissions that was approved by another ed. Strange, because TMB is not even an ed, he is only a coder, from what I understand, so how could his objection overrule the decision of an editor? The result, as documented in my last journal, is that my submission has been deep sixed, marked as hidden, so that it is not in the queue, not in the pre-queue, not anywhere! I request, respectfully, that the eds cease this act of censorship. TMB's objections are no more valid than mine, and since I thought this particular article important enough to be a submission to SoylentNews, TMB's objections are noted, but now I think he may actually be a Nazi. Which, as a Native American, seems strange. But I do remember a scene in the movie "Under the Volcano", starring Albert Finney, where a Metis riding on a bus, and wearing a National Socialist Party Pin, harasses a full-blood Native American Mexican. And then it hit me! Not about racial purity at all, since the half-breeds could feel superior to the full bloods, as long as they were not of the "right" blood. TMB is a mongrel. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I am one, too! But to object to an investigative piece looking into the alt-right, because he is afraid, and I repeat, AFRAID, that I am calling him a Nazi? Methinks the Buzzard protests too much. Let my submission go, eds! Let it go.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @03:42AM (3 children)
Here's Socialism:
The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers".
The Nazis were FASCISTS.
They were Capitalist Authoritarians, NOT Anti-Capitalist Civil Libertarians.
They could not possibly be farther away from Socialism on the political palate.
Not even 2 weeks ago, we went over this. [soylentnews.org]
You attempt to use words that you don't understand.
You are a nitwit.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @04:18PM (2 children)
Different AC, but Communism is under the umbrella of the term Socialism. That makes both of you wrong, in a way. So, I'd be more careful if I were you before I claimed people were misusing words or calling them names.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @09:35PM (1 child)
Communism is under the umbrella of the term Socialism
I would call Communism an -extension- of Socialism.
My vision of Communism:
After all the workplaces that can logically be organized as worker-owned cooperatives[1] have been, the gov't then acquires control of the remaining very-large natural monopolies (water, sewage, electricity[1], natural gas, communications, roads, mass transit, ...) and, as an agent for The Workers, runs those--with a tight feedback loop, giving an ability for the population to boot out poor performers quickly.
N.B. The -extension- part needn't differ greatly from the brand of Liberal Democracy that they have in northern Europe.
Why Denmark Is So Happy (The Nordic Economic Model Makes Sense) by George Lakey [wagingnonviolence.org]
[1] ...and with modern technologies, centralized generation and a grid are becoming less necessary.
[2] See northern Italy for a place with considerable success at creating Worker-Owners.
Since 1985, they have had a mechanism that helps greatly with this: The Marcora Law [google.com]
There are now well over 10,000 such co-ops in Italy, constructed from and by workers that the boom-and-bust Capitalists had laid off.
.
Note that The top-down things that have called themselves "Communism"[3] are falsely named (as with "National Socialists" and "DPRK").
The Bolsheviks betrayed their own principles immediately after the October 1917 revolution, crushing the soviets (workers' councils, residents' councils, etc.) and ruling at gunpoint.
[3] ...with the Capitalist West gleefully parroting the term and pointing to the failure of "Communism".
...not to mention the Capitalist West's overt efforts to quash the nascent "Communist" economy. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [criticalenquiry.org]
Before Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin took over, the Bolsheviks had once again showed that what they wanted was centralization of top-down power. [google.com]
.
In summary: A lot of folks imagine gov't control of -everything- as being "Socialism".
They completely omit from the picture the worker-owned workplaces (Democracy in the Workplace).
That is -the- ESSENTIAL mark of Socialism, i.e. the worker-owned cooperative is the fundamental unit of Socialism (or even the individual worker-owner).
I also see worker-owned co-ops as essential to the model of Communism, which proceeds from that starting point.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 29 2017, @09:45PM
[1] See northern Italy for a place with considerable success at creating Worker-Owners.
Since 1985, they have had a mechanism that helps greatly with this: The Marcora Law [google.com]
There are now well over 10,000 such co-ops in Italy, constructed from and by workers that the boom-and-bust Capitalists had laid off.
[2] ...and with modern technologies, centralized generation and a grid are becoming less necessary.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]