Thread by @MrGoldstein7

A Trade Union, also known as a Worker's 'Council' in Russian is known as a Soviet. The Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It was a union of workers trade union councils.

This is the principle of Marxist Socialism - or communism - that everything was owned by the public sector - a public sector set up in the name of workers.

Workers were forced into trade unions or Gulags, and peasants were forced into collective farms or Gulags, resulting in millions of deaths. Why? Because they abolished the free markets, thus preventing the free exchange of goods, meaning that there was no way to calculate prices.

Without the prices or independent 'private' people to fulfill the need, there was no incentive to meet demand, and thus the peasants starved.

When Lenin got into power in Russia after the October Revolution (which happened in November), one of his first tasks was to get bread from the farms into the cities.

But Lenin, like all socialists, believed that profit was theft. Therefore he ordered the peasants to sell their grain to the state at a fixed price, and then this would be, in turn, redistributed to the people in the cities.

Of course the price Lenin was willing to pay for this grain was lower than what the grain was actually worth, so the peasants decided not to sell it to the government... obviously.

Instead they hopped onto the trains with sacks of grain on their backs, and sold the grain directly to the workers in the cities - creating a free market.

Lenin wasn't happy with this - calling the free market, a black market - and ordered these bagmen to be shot. He then ordered that the peasants hand over all of their crops which weren't required to feed themselves.

So, basically, instead of trading their own goods for food, they stole food instead.

Lazy people with guns, claiming to be workers, stole food off the people who grew food. And you know they were lazy because if they had got to work and had produced something of value which the farmers wanted, they wouldn't have to resort to stealing.

But no, the 'workers' were producing bullets and bombs - things the farmers didn't want - so they had no incentive to sell their food to the cities.

There was now a shortage of food in the cities, causing the price of food to go up, making people hungry. Instead of producing consumer goods that the farmers might want, Lenin called for the peasants to sell their food for cheaper prices, giving them no incentive to do so

They then refused and decided to go behind his back. Then Lenin decided to shoot people who tried to trade for food, bringing a halt to the free market. Thus the only way to get food was to steal it by gunpoint, which is what they did. Welcome to utopia!

Anyone who refused to hand over their grain was deemed to be a capitalist, and the term 'Kulak' (meaning tight-fisted) was applied to describe them. This was during the Russian Revolution.

But later, in the 1930s, the Marxist Socialist State under Stalin decided to crack down on the peasantry even more - since Marx had called for the 'improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan' in the Communist Manifesto.

Well, this 'improvement' could only happen by force. Stalin's Five Year Plan, the collectivisation and the war against the Kulaks resulted in the direct death of somewhere in the region of 3 or 4 million Ukrainians through famine, and more indirectly, weakened by hunger.

Hundreds of thousands Ukrainians were deported to Siberia as slaves.

Socialists around the world then say - well, this wasn't REAL socialism! But it was. The forced collectivisation of the peasantry - into the public hierarchy - according to the state's plan was done by the public sector. The public sector is not capitalism - it is socialism.

These Marxists though claim it was State Capitalism, which is an oxymoron. It's a term made up purely to confuse people. It is saying 'public' and 'private' at the same time, which is impossible. An entity is either not part of a public hierarchy, or it is.

If an entity is public, then it's not capitalism, it's socialism. Simple.
And this is why the term State Capitalism was invented to hide the term socialism.

If the public sector state is in control, as the phrase State Capitalism implies, then it's socialism - public or social control of the means of production.

But the enemies of capitalism want to deceive and confuse people. If they muddy the terms enough so that you don't understand them, you'll give up trying to understand everything, and instead turn to the slogans. Slogans like: steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Even though Robin Hood stole from the King, who was the state, and gave the money back to the taxpayer, regardless whether they were rich or poor. But shhhh! Don't mention that.

Here's another slogan that socialists use to confuse you: capitalism is for big corporations.

But that's simply not true. Again, capitalism is about the private sector - the non-hierarchy part of society. It is distinctly anti-corporation.

In fact, it is the socialists who are pro-corporation. They want government control of the economy. They want central banks - as Marx called for in the Communist Manifesto. They want trade unions and worker's councils - which are corporations.

If you have large trade unions which dominate society (something that Marxist syndicalists believe in), they embody the nation. If they embody the nation - embody, body, corpse, corporation (that's where it comes from) - then they would be public entities.

A central state finds it easier to control a handful of public corporations than it does thousands of small private businesses. So statists - socialists - who want to control society - want a handful of public corporations, rather than thousands of small private companies.

This is the central idea behind Marxist Socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism, or corporatism, or Fascism, or National Socialism. They all want the public sector to have total control. Total state control. Totalitarian control

Socialists want the end of capitalism. They want the end of the private sector. They want everyone to be part of this hierarchy-the body of the nation, the corporation, the corporate state, socialism-with most of you as slaves at the bottom and them in total control at the top.

In this utopia - for them - there can be no individual who is outside of the state.

Marx called for "1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 purposes"

"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance."

"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

[Rebels like Kulaks or Jews]

"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

[Yes, State Monopoly and Central Banking on the NATIONAL level]

"6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."

"7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan."

[Four of Five Year Plans]

"8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

[Slavery and War]

"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country."

[Shrinking Markets - to ensure a parity between soil and Volk]

"10. Free education for all children in PUBLIC schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."

[E.g. the Hitler Youth]

Arguably Hitler implemented all of these points.

So, a state-monopoly on property, a state-monopoly on media and transport, a state-monopoly on factories and production centres (also known as nationalization), a central state-bank which has a monopoly, state monopoly on education, and so on.

All within the state, nothing outside of the state. This is why they call for social welfare, and social security, and social medicine, state regulations, state taxes, state monopolies.

If the state ruled the economy - everything would be better! - they claim.

Fascism was against Capitalism, against the Private Sector, against Individual Freedom
Pro-Trade Union, Pro-Syndicalism, Pro-Corporations, Pro-Public Sector.

Their main influence was Marxism, but they can't admit that, because most people feared Marxism at the time.

So they wanted to distance themselves from the Marxists by calling themselves something else - in the end, calling themselves Fascists, and claiming their way was a Third Way, between Marxism and Capitalism.

In reality, it was just NATIONAL Marxist-Socialism, rather than INTERnational Marxist-Socialism

All must bow to the collective - the worker, the nation, the race, the gender, the group. All must bow to the state. All must bow to the leader. Hence the term: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer. One people, one state, one leader.

Capitalism is NOT about state control, and it isn't about corporations or any other 'public' entity. It is about the private sector - individuals and small groups at the bottom.

Capitalism is about giving power to the individual - individual freedom (classic liberalism), not public freedom.

Capitalists believe that, left to free market forces, public sector entities will collapse in on themselves. You know this is true because, if the lazy state wasn't able to forcefully collect taxes from those who actually work, then the bloated corpse of the state would expire.

The public sector does not create wealth, it can only dig its claws into the workers and extract wealth from them. Without a private sector - or the ability to forcefully take money from it - the public sector would not be able to sustain itself.

The only reason corporations get larger and larger is because the state is propping up the rotten edifice of their businesses. They do this through regulations and minimum wage (both of which hurt small companies more than larger ones), they do this through tax breaks, ....

....tariffs on goods, anti-competition laws, and so on. This is why large corporations like YouTube, Twitter, SpaceX, Tesla aren't making profit, but have somehow survived for years longer than they normally would have done.

This is because funds are being artificially funneled into them from external sources - from society as a whole (through 'public' shareholders, or from the 'public' state). They've not earned this revenue legitimately through profit.

Instead, they've had money granted to them in the hope that eventually they will turn a profit. Now yes, you could say that this is an 'investment', but it's clearly a bad investment to invest in a company that is not profitable.

Clearly the only ones investing in these companies are public investors. If we invest in something that doesn't work, we lose our money. We can only blame ourselves. But when the state invests our money into something that doesn't work it cannot admit to us that it made a mistake

It takes taxes and prints money and pumps all that into the project in the hope that it will, somehow, create a profit. This is why states generate huge companies that are internally inefficient, and then props them up, inflating bigger bubbles of stupidity until eventually-pop!

The bubble bursts. Confidence is lost. The downfall of the inflated bubble. This is known as a recession. A depression. Or a collapse. This process is then used as proof that capitalism is failing. See, capitalism doesn't work!

The bubble that burst was created by the public sector - by society as a whole, or by the state. The failure of socialism, is being used to blame capitalism. The public sector is failing - see, the private sector doesn't work!

No. The correction to fair value; the reset; the recession; the depression; the crash - all of this is reality catching up on the artificially inflated public sector economy. It is the collapse of the hierarchy of inefficiency and corruption.

It is the private sector saying - we can't support this rubbish any more. It is the unshackling of the chains that held down the private sector, allowing the actual economy to function again once more.

But socialists don't want to admit this. They don't want the free market to function. They want to retain power.

So, instead of letting the economy correct itself in a matter of months - like in the Great Depression of 1920 - they try and retain their control of the economy - like in the Great Depression of 1929.

The 1920 recession lasted 12 months. Why? Because the US government did nothing. The 1929 recession lasted 17 years, until 1946. Why? Price controls, wage controls, deficit spending, quantitative easing or 'dollar intervention', government bonds, government loans, laws, ....

....regulations, restricting the free functions of the private market, central bank manipulation of inflation or deflation. It wasn't a free market. And so the private sector free market wasn't allowed to recover from the correction, which is why the US economy didn't recover.

The economy finally recovered in 1946, when Roosevelt had died and the shackles came off the economy. The same happened recently, which is why the world economy has been at a standstill since 2008, and why we're on the verge of another collapse.

It is not the private sector. It is the fat beer-belly bureaucratic public state sector which isn't working, and it's about to crash again. And it will keep on crashing, again and again, and we'll keep getting hangovers until people decide to learn from history.

Until people realise that the public sector is the problem - the cancer of society - and decide to sober up, nothing will change.

Some people genuinely believe that a strong public sector, a strong collective, a strong nation, a strong society, is what is needed to solve all our problems. Because the answer to the problems of the current state is a revolution which brings in another state. /s

The problem of the old aristocratic regime can be cured by the French Revolution and the dictatorship of Napoleon. The problem of the Czarist state can be cured by the Leninist state or the Stalinist state. /s

The problems of the Kaiser Reich can be cured by the Weimar Socialist Democratic state, which in turn can be cured by the National Socialist State /s

The problems of the current authoritarian state can be cured by a <insert totalitarian regime ideology here> state.

They are not interested in anything other than power. They want more public-sector monopoly control, and they want to be in charge of it. That is all. We call these people socialists and they belong to the Left of the political spectrum.

Others believe that the problem is the public sector itself. They call for limitation of government power, a voluntary tax system, or the abolition of government altogether. They want more private-sector control.

We call these people Right-wing Libertarians or Classic Liberals, and they belong on the right of the political spectrum.

Some people believe that anarchism is on the Left. There are anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists, who call for the abolition of the current state, and then start talking about a new utopian federal state, which is apparently classed as "anarchism" in their minds.

Really? Anarchists want public collective control? They want a federal system? NO, they want the opposite: they want to get rid of the public hierarchy in favour of private individual freedom.

Anarchism in the Leftist sense is, just like the term State Capitalism, an oxymoronic term. You can't have socialist-anarchism - they're directly contradictory. Socialism is state, anarchism is non-state.

Others say that National Socialists and the Fascists are on the Right and are capitalists. Really? These people genuinely think that Fascists and Nazis DON'T want a strong leader or a strong state which is in totalitarian control.

They genuinely believe that Fascists and Nazis don't promote collective racial or national control, but promote individual freedom and free trade. Clearly that's not the case. Hitler makes it blatantly clear that he hates capitalism and free markets which he associates with Jews.

Yes, Hitler hates both capitalism and Marxist-Socialism because, in his mind, both of these two ideologies were created by the Jews in a giant conspiracy to bring down western civilisation.

As Zitelmann points out:

The primary reason why Hitler was against Marxism was because Marxism was Jewish. But clearly, Nazis and Fascists are for a strong public sector, and thus, are on the Left of the political spectrum and are socialists.

Even Hitler said they were competitors, which is why he emphasizes their differences over and over.

All must be part of the National Socialist state rather than the Marxist Socialist state.

Concentration camps or gulags are not free market. They are made by one thing, and one thing only: the state. In order to create them, the state must control the economy.

The term 'privatization' was coined by the National Socialists, but, seizing businesses off private owners and selling them to members of the party (the state) and retaining control over them by bringing those businesses under syndicate-corporate control isn't privatization.

It wasn't privatization. Everything was brought under state control.

Private unions were absorbed into the DAF - the German Labour Front - because all unions had to be brought under control of the state. In other words, unions were nationalized and socialized - which is exactly what Marxist-Socialists want.

The USSR did the same thing. That's why the worker's trade unions - or councils, or "Soviets" - were the state. That's why they called it the Soviet Union - the worker's council union. When the Soviets do it, they call it socialism, but when Hitler did it they call it capitalism.

@threadreaderapp unroll