From FasciPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Benito Mussolini, fascist icon.

Socialism is an economic system in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the system in which it resides, be it a corporation, state,  government, or small community. The word social comes from the Latin socius meaning "friend." When you're being social, you're being friendly. Go to a social, or mixer, and you might make a lot of new friends. Stand in the corner pouting, however, and you're being anti-social. Hence why "Socialism" regards sharing something among a trusted group. A Socialist is somebody who is social, therefore being in favor of the ideas of Socialism.

Socialist Economic Systems

In economics, Socialism is a structure in which every person in the system has a share of the various elements of production, distribution, and exchange of resources. Such a form of ownership is granted typically through a democratic system of governance, but not always. Socialism has also been demonstrated through a cooperative system in which each member of the society owns a share of communal resources.

Capitalist Socialism

Trump is probably not calling himself a communist here.

To an American Conservative's ear, which equates socialism with communism, it may be surprising to hear that there is even such a thing as Capitalist socialism, but educated people know better. Farmer's Co-ops across America engage in direct socialism. Any fisherman will tell you that everyone on the boat receives a share of the catch. Often, the crew owns the boat jointly . Everyone knows that public corporations are jointly owned by the shareholders. The principal difference between capitalist socialism and some other forms, is that ownership is often not spread equally, with some owning multiple shares of the production and distribution. In Capitalist Socialism it is possible to own shares in production, but not distribution, as an example.

Socialism vs. Communism

In all forms of socialism, the people own the factors of economic production. The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government. 


Read more in the Main Article--> Juche

Juche, (or Juche Concept, Juche Philosophy, or Juche Ideology) is the most popular ideology in North Korea and the official ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea. Often (Purposely?) mistranslated as the "Juche Idea", North Korean sources attribute its conceptualization to Kim Il-sung, the country's founder and first leader, but it is really a unique fascist concept. Juche was originally regarded as a variant of Marxism–Leninism until Kim Jong-il, Kim Il-sung's son and successor, declared it a distinct ideology in the 1970s, as he attempted to move North Korea away from communism, striking the word "communism" from the North Korean Constitution.

Utopian socialism

Read more in the Main Article--> Utopian socialism

Conservatives who saw the settled life of agricultural society disrupted by the insistent demands of industrialism were as likely as their radical counterparts to be outraged by the self-interested competition of capitalists and the squalor of industrial cities. They distinguished themselves, however, by their commitment to equality and their willingness to envision a future in which industrial power and capitalism were divorced. To their moral outrage at the conditions that were reducing many workers to pauperism, the critics of industrial capitalism added a faith in the power of people to put science and an understanding of history to work in the creation of a more moral society.

Fascist Socialism

Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which different interests are coordinated and harmonised in unity.

—Benito Mussolini, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions


To a Fascist, a Socialist is more akin to a patriot. He voluntarily serves his society without giving up his individuality or personality. In spite of propaganda from the usual sources, Fascist socialism has nothing to do with Marxism or Communism, and almost doesn't even qualify as economic. Fascist socialism is social, in the people sense, not the economic sense.

Fascist economics (including National Socialism, in spite of the name) do not generally qualify as "socialism" as outlined above. Fascist policies do not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property, or the redistribution of wealth.

Quotebubble.png ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. ‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. they cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
—Adolf Hitler, Liberty Magazine on July 9th 1932

Marxist Socialism

Socialism is a term used to describe a political, social and economic movement which emerged in Europe during the 19th century, principally as a response to the transition of society from one based on quasi-feudalism, to the rise of the Industrial Revolution resulting in a new financial class-group. Under increasing Liberalism, the old order became eroded; a large part of the peasantry had migrated into sprawling urban areas to find work in factories to support themselves and their families. The Liberal plutocratic nouveau riche in many instances were unrestrained by the noblesse oblige of the old aristocracy and the social principles of Christianity, which had offered some protection for the masses. In addition to this, many of the new plutocratic class were aliens; jews by race, inspired by the vicious, predatory teachings of the Talmud;[1] such as the Rothschild banking family. The socialist movement emerged to find a solution to these problems.

A socialism moved towards and into the twentieth century it adopted Marxism as its basic fundamental ideal (Marxist Socialism). The Bolsheviks constantly referred to themselves as "socialists" and the "socialist" Social Democratic Party of Germany founded in 1863 by a jewish committed socialist, Ferdinand Lassalle, was one of the world's first Marxist parties.


The term Socialism had been used for the first time in the British Cooperative Magazine in 1827, associated with the Owenite movement. In February 1832 Pierre Leroux,[2][3] a Frenchman and member of the Saint-Simonist movement, referred to socialism in an article in Le Globe. He used it specifically as an antithesis to individualism. This European movement can be said to have emerged in 1820-1840[4] and the leading figures early on were Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Henri de Saint-Simon. Owen was one of the rare industrial magnates (prominent in the cotton industry) who showed empathy for his workers and created the cooperative movement to ensure a decent environment for the workers and access to education for themselves and their children.


File:Socialism criticism.jpg
Criticism of socialism

Background: Transition from Feudalism to Plutocracy

The core ideal of socialism, it is said, was to liberate human potential from capital. Europe transformed from the Middle Ages into the Early Modern era from a society based loosely on the principles of feudalism; within which the predominating elements were the warrior aristocracy and the Christian Church; to one based on commerce (also known as oligarchy or plutocracy). The exact nature of this transformation has been heatedly debated, with social theorists such as Max Weber and Werner Sombart providing illuminating views.

Often the "capitalist" spirit was closely identified with Judaism and in modern Europe, areas where the most Judaised branch of Christianity predominated: Calvinism. It's ascent to hegemony can be traced from the Venetian Republic, to the Dutch Republic and from 1688 onto the British Empire, then to the United States; Sephardic jews were leading figures at the origin of every step in this chain. Freemasonry would also later be argued as a means to network this change.

This process encouraged technological advances and for the middle-class, a more comfortable lifestyle and access to luxury goods (for which it was lauded by Voltaire and most proponents of the Enlightenment), but not everybody saw positives. The drive to "get money" had removed man from rural life, the rise of an ultra-individualistic "I'm alright Jack" view of the world had rent man apart from the collectivist idea of community. Traditional religion, local cultures and ethnic identities were uprooted in the process. New ruling castes, of finance monopolists or industrial magnates emerged, and unlike the aristocracy of old, many of them did not feel a sense of duty to the poor or the worker. In fact, many of the leading capitalist families were jews, who, due to their religion, had a contempt for gentiles and saw them as cattle to be milked. Romanticism, which arose during the first half of the 19th century, can be seen as a backlash and the seed from which both socialism and nationalism would germinate.[4]


Early socialism

jewish pseudo-socialism

Read more in the Main Article--> Marxism

Reasons for jewish infiltration of the European movement of socialism are much debated. They asserted that "empathy" for the masses was their primary motivation, however, the historical record suggests other reasons: (1) to insert anti-socialist ideas such as cosmopolitanism, boundless internationalism, radical feminism, Europhobia, sexual Bolshevism which make socialism seem to be a negative, destructive and unattractive movement to the implicitly patriotic and traditional host nation. They promoted these agendas so that real socialism never gains enough influence to reform the monetary system which jews dominate; (2) to gain for themselves a leadership role in all parties, so if political upheaval does take place, they are already in a position to push jewish interests ahead of the interests of the host population.

See: jewish influence

National Socialism vs. Marxist Socialism

Read more in the Main Article--> Social nationalism

National Socialism, like other socialisms, began as anti-capitalist, but at the same time encouraged private property rights and enterprises that occur in a responsible manner. The term "socialism" in National Socialism is in practice based more on Volksgemeinschaft. It has been argued that socialism was already rampant in Germany before the advent of the National Socialist Party.

See: Russian October Revolution

The term socialism was misused by Marxists in Russia (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) who used it as a disguise to get all power of the state and misuse it for their own purpose. While the jewish Bolsheviks (Marxists) enjoyed a high living standard and all freedom for themselves, others did not.

They established:

  • Political terror and repression, travel limitations, censure
  • General poverty, establishing very low wages and creating catastrophic housing shortage
  • Poor quality of services and goods due to mis-management and planning incompetence
  • Placing unqualified and often uneducated people in pivotal administrative roles for political reasons
  • jewish 'leadership' in many areas of life.

Other countries which adopted (or had it forced upon them) fully "socialist" systems had the same experiences. Their leaders were generally disliked by the majority of the population, and the system was also unpopular.

National Socialism however, provided:

  • Relatively high living standard for non-jews
  • Full employment
  • Pride in the nation
  • Equal distribution of money services and goods
  • All necessary freedoms for the population
  • Liberation from jewish leadership and business.

National socialist leaders, especially Adolf Hitler, and their government, were very popular.


  • The class struggle had a just motive, and Socialism at the beginning was in the right. What has happened is that instead of pursuing its original path of seeking after social justice among men. Socialism has turned into a mere doctrine, and one of the chilliest frigidity, and it has no concern, great or small, for the liberation of working men. Karl Marx was a German jew who sat in his study and watched, with horrible impassivity, the most dramatic happenings of his age. He was a German jew who, with the British factories in Manchester before his eyes, and in the middle of formulating inexorable laws about the accumulation of capital, in the middle of formulating inexorable laws about production and about the interests of employers and workmen, was all the time writing letters to his friend Friedrich Engels, telling him the workers were a mob and a rabble, which need not be bothered with except in so far as they might serve to test out his doctrines.José Antonio Primo de Rivera, 4 March 1934.
  • Yes, we call ourselves the Worker's Party! That's the first step away from the middle-class State! We call ourselves the Worker's Party because we want to make work free, because for us, productive work is the driving force of history, because work means more to us than possessions, education, niveau, and a middle-class background do! Marxism, with its destructive theories of peoples and races, is the exact opposite of Socialism. Marxism is the graveyard not only for national peoples but also particularly for the one class that fights whole-heartedly for its realization: the working class. – Dr. Joseph Goebbels, 1930, The Nazi-Sozi: Questions & Answers for National-Socialists
  • This whole jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found.Mikhail Bakunin, a leader in the First International. Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands, 1869[5]
  • The Rothschild leeches have for years hung on with distended suckers to the body politic of Europe. This family of infamous usurers, the foundation of whose fortunes was laid deep in the mire of cheating and scoundrels, has spread itself out over Europe like a network. It is a gigantic conspiracy, manifold and comprehensive. There is a Rothschild — a devoted member of the family — in every capital of Europe. Vienna, St Petersburg, Paris, London, Berlin, are each and all garrisoned and held for family purposes by members of this gang. This blood-sucking crew has been the cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century, and has piled up its prodigious wealth chiefly through formenting wars between States which never ought to have quarreled. Wherever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumours of war circulate and menʹs minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hooked‐nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbances.Labour Leader, 19 December 1891, paper of the Independent Labour Party
  • What is Patriotism? Love of country, someone answers. But what is meant by ‘love of country’? “The rich man,” says a French writer, “loves his country because he conceives it owes him a duty, whereas the poor man loves his country as he believes he owes it a duty.” The recognition of the duty we owe our country is, I take it, the real mainspring of patriotic action; and our ‘country’, properly understood, means not merely the particular spot on the earth's surface from which we derive our parentage, but also comprises all the men, women and children of our race whose collective life constitutes our country’s political existence. True patriotism seeks the welfare of each in the happiness of all, and is inconsistent with the selfish desire for worldly wealth which can only be gained by the spoliation of less favoured fellow-mortals.James Connolly, Patriotism and Labour, 1897

See also

Further reading

External links

  1. broken cite news
  2. broken cite news
  3. broken cite news
  4. 4.0 4.1 broken cite news
  5. broken cite news