The Ugly Face of Socialism

[BabyChristian22]

In practice, the ideology of Socialism has been defined by those regimes in history who have claimed the name. The promise is of a utopia here on earth, but the end result is slavery under a ruthless dictatorship. Jesus said that we shall know the tree by the fruit it bears. The following are some of the most notable examples of the fruit of Socialism in recent history:

Kim Jong Il

Kim Jong Il, Dictator of North Korea

North Korea famine



Stalin

Stalin - Dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953

"Stalin is responsible for the murder of about 43,000,000 people, 1929-1953."
Source:
Stalin's mass murder--democide



Jim Jones

Jim Jones - leader of communist cult, "The Peoples Temple"


Military personnel evacuate bodies from "Jonestown".



Moammar Gadhafi

Moammar Gadhafi, Dictator of Libya 1969-2011, supporter of "Islamic Socialism"




Hitler

Adolf Hitler - Dictator of Germany (1934 to 1945) and leader of the National Socialist German Worker's (Nazi) Party.


I decided not to show a picture of the Holocaust since it is too disturbing.


I recommend reading this:
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO Xlll ON SOCIALISM

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

None of these guys are socialist in real sense of the word.

This is just propaganda perpertuated by people who believe that the top 1% of weathly people need to be protected by the rest of us for some insane reason

 

[FullyMT]

The first two are communists.
The second is a cult-leader.
The third is a fascist.
These all involve social identity, but are not the same as "Socialism"

 

[BabyChristian22]

The first two are communists.
The second is a cult-leader.
The third is a fascist.
These all involve social identity, but are not the same as "Socialism"

National Socialist German Worker's (Nazi) Party. What gives you the authority to say who is not a socialist when they self-identify as such?

 

[FullyMT]

National Socialist German Worker's (Nazi) Party. What gives you the authority to say who is not a socialist when they self-identify as such?

Because they ARE a fascist party. They had a completely different outlook on economics than Communists.
Look at a history book.

 

[BabyChristian22]

Because they ARE a fascist party. They had a completely different outlook on economics than Communists.
Look at a history book.

Look at what they call themselves. They call themselves socialists, and one thing that all these societies and governments have in common is a dictator who has absolute power and control over people under them. It's that way with almost all socialist leaders in history. If the Nazis are fascists then I don't see any difference between fascism and socialism other than two different names for the same thing.

 

[Erose]

None of these guys are socialist in real sense of the word.

This is just propaganda perpertuated by people who believe that the top 1% of weathly people need to be protected by the rest of us for some insane reason

Huh? It is the liberals in congress and the Whitehouse that protecting the top 1%. From what I understand these same liberals don't see nothing wrong with socialism, since they are trying to push it here in the US because it has helped Europe out so much.

 

[FullyMT]

Look at what they call themselves. They call themselves socialists, and one thing that all these have in common is a dictator who has absolute power and control over people under them. It's that way with almost all socialist leaders in history.

So, you're working under a definition that socialism involves a common dictator with absolute control over the people?
Please define socialism. According to one list I found, India is included as a socialist country. Would you agree with that?

 

[AMDG]

Jim Jones was Socialist (as Marxists are).

Here is one link. But there are many, many others.

Socialism and Jonestown +30 | John Wright

 

[BabyChristian22]

So, you're working under a definition that socialism involves a common dictator with absolute control over the people?
Please define socialism. According to one list I found, India is included as a socialist country. Would you agree with that?

Look at all the socialist leaders in recent history. Almost all of them were ruthless dictators. You are trying to make a rule out of the exception to the rule of what it means to be a socialist, but I'm going by the characteristics of the majority of governments and societies who call themselves socialist.

 

[Gwendolyn]

The first two are communists.
The second is a cult-leader.
The third is a fascist.
These all involve social identity, but are not the same as "Socialism"

Exactly.

You guys are hilarious in your fear of anything that appears even remotely "socialist".

 

[FullyMT]

Look at all the socialist leaders in recent history. Almost all of them were ruthless dictators. You are trying to make a rule out of the exception to the rule of what it means to be a socialist, but I'm going by the characteristics of the majority of governments and societies who call themselves socialist.

Again, what is your definition of socialism. I find it hard to believe that you are claiming Fascism and Communism have the same political and social agenda -- they do not.
There are plenty of other countries I can include which are not run as a dictatorship. So, I ask, again, what is your definition of socialism?

 

[AMDG]

Jim Jones said that he was Socialist--Marxist in fact. Hitler belonged to the Nazi Socialist Party. And Communism is based on a socialistic economy plus Marxism. (Karl Marx wasn't an Australian capitalist you know.) Honestly why are you guys trying so hard to deny facts? It's just fact. Socialism is a form of economy. No one is "picking on" you or whether you have an economy based on socialism or not. Whether the form of govenment runs to a dictatorship (totalitarianism) or representative (republic) or even whether or not it is a monarchy is *not* the economic system.

 

[MKJ]

Being a tyrant or dictator doesn't make one a socialist. The Roman emperor Caligula was a crazy tyrant, but not a socialist.

And calling oneself a socialist doesn't make it true. I can call myself the Queen of Canada, but I doubt the PM would make time for me just because of that.

People really need to learn what words actually mean before they use them.

 

[FullyMT]

Jim Jones said that he was Socialist--Marxist in fact. Hitler belonged to the Nazi Socialist Party. And Communism is based on a socialistic economy plus Marxism. (Karl Marx wasn't an Australian capitalist you know.) Honestly why are you guys trying so hard to deny facts? It's just fact. Socialism is a form of economy. No one is "picking on" you or whether you have an economy based on socialism or not.

To claim that Fascism and Communism are tied to the same economic policies is crazy.

 

[MKJ]

And to that end, from Wikepedia:

Socialism

/ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2][3]


The rest of the article goes into more detail about different kinds of socialism and gives some outside sources. It's not a bad starting place for anyone who wants to be able to identify what socialism means.

 

[BabyChristian22]

Again, what is your definition of socialism.

Again, I define socialism by the characteristics of the majority of governments and societies who call themselves socialist. Almost all of these governments and societies who call themselves socialist have a ruthless dictator. In other words, I am judging the tree by the fruit that it bears and not by some fantasied ideal.

 

[AMDG]

To claim that Fascism and Communism are tied to the same economic policies is crazy.

Why? The economy is not the form of government. It is separate.

Let's see if I can remember how it was diagramed at school--Fascism: totalitarian form of government, right leaning; Communism: totalitarian form of government, left leaning. *Then* the form of economy is addressed and it could be capitalistic or socialistic. For example, in the United States, the form of government would be: republic, and the economic system would be capitalistic.

 

[MKJ]

Again, I define socialism by the characteristics of the majority of governments and societies who call themselves socialist. Almost all of these governments and societies who call themselves socialist have a ruthless dictator. In other words, I am judging the tree by the fruit that it bears.

That is a totally bizarre way to define anything. And it is also a pretty questionable statement as far as dictatorships. Hitler, btw, was elected.

 

[FullyMT]

BC, you are not providing an actual definition.

AMDG, the way govt's are elected in and function has been based in the economy since the early 1900s. The "Banana Republic" is a clear example of this.