Are Socialism and Communism one and the same?
Socialist symbol Communist symbol
I believe it was from Kwame Ture whom I first heard champion this term called socialism. At that time, i was a young man trying to come to an overstanding between, the Christianinsanity of my mother and my birth environment, the burgeoning Rastafari movement of my formative pre-teen years, and the contradictions and contrast between the N.O.I Islam of Malcolm X, and this other Islam, said to be the one true Islam. During this period, I was trying to find out where I fit in as a young black male, a child of Afrika who grew up in a melanin dominated society, a colony of a brutish imperialist empire, who against my will was emigrated to a predominately melanin deficient country, that was also a ward of said brutish empire, but hey…at least they weren’t Americans, I was told.
I couldn’t wrap my head around this socialism that Ture was preaching. He even mentioned Kwame Nkrumah and scientific socialism, as the ideologies that Afrikan people must embrace. Most Pan Afrikanist headed Ture’s invitation, because the white media demonized socialism, and if they opposed it, it must be good for us. Thus when I found out that Huey P Newton was handing out Mao’s Red Book on college campuses, I was lost. I was lost because Communist excesses in China was even more documented than Stalin’s depravity. But then again China was not an Allie of the West. It was however, Molefe Asante, who reminded I, as a young blood, not to forsake Afrika and practice Afrocentrism. Yet more than a few of us, left over from rejecting Arabism, became socialist. What was this third option? And why did it have such a pull on so many? Over the decades, I watched as socialism, championed equal rights for black people, equity for women, fairness in employment and housing and champion the rights of workers. Sounds good so far. After awhile I noticed that my Afrikan centeredness was called racism, by these same socialists. My rejection of homosexuality as anything but anti-Afrikan and anti family, was racism. My pan Afrikaness was equated with the Klu Klux Klan, by someone who was in the trenches as I was. Many kneegrow socialists couldn’t wait to sleep with mostly white people. Many became homosexuals.
What the fuck was going on?
I soon realized that Socialism was the new reLIEgion. Like Christianinsanity, Arabism, Rastafari, New Age-ism, Capitalism, Civil Rights-ism, academician-ism…hell…even consciousness has become a reLIEgion, because we have not seen the world through Afrikan eyes, but through colonialised Afrikan eyes. When seen through the pale lens of the imperialist, everything we do or say, or act, is based on learned behavior from those who colonized us. Over the last 10 years, I crossed another fallen soldier off my friends list. He was first a dyed in the wool Pan Afrikanist, who advocated Garveyism, who then became a socialist, then a academic, pursuing edumacation as a path to self aggrandizement. Along the way this kat told me he was a feminist, a promosexual and by the way he would rabidly defend it, to this day I believe a closet homosexual. We fell out because i did not support homosexuality. He implied that Homosexuality was has ancient to Afrika, as, is our melanin. When i asked for proof, he went ghost. Then he spoke on feminism, I penned a post on this blog about the origin of modern feminism, I shared with him and he took it and had a filed day with his feminist cave bitches clowning me. That was not manly. I realized that this socialism is more dangerous than many believed. Few reLIEgion emasculate and make a kneegrow impotent like Socialism.
At least with Christianinsanity, they could still be somewhat black. Some kneegrows can be semi-black under Arabism, but socialism states their are no color, class, race and if you follow the news..sex! So how do i define you? How can i judge you? And let’s not delude yourself. Judging is not wrong, what is wrong is Judging AND condemning unfairly. I can judge if you are a male or female based on certain characteristics, that is beyond societal scope. I judge the distance and speed of on coming cars, when i try to jay walks across a busy roadway. I judge if I should continue to converse with you if the first word out of your mouth is “god said” or “according to Muhammad” or the “Marxist believe”. No Christian can converse with me on practically anything without referencing the buy bull, thus, they are of little importance with regards to anything outside the buy bull. Like wise a Socialist/Marxist/Communist. I lump them all into the same dog pile for a reason. And that reason has to take into effect the origin of these three ideology, which are not really that dissimilar.
The three Ideologies
Communism and socialism are said to be economic and political structures that promote equality and seek to eliminate social classes. Sometimes, the two are used interchangeably, though they are quite different. In theory, socialism and communism sound appealing, with everyone doing their share and working together to provide for the greater good. Each utilizes a planned production schedule to ensure the needs of all community members are met. They are Utopian economic structures that some countries have tried; however, most have failed or become dictatorships, making reform nearly impossible.
In a communist society everything is owned by the working class and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy and poor classes. Instead, all are equal. Production from the community is distributed based upon need, not by effort or amount of work. It is expected that basic needs for each worker are met by the community, and there is no more to be obtained through working more than what is required. For example, if a worker puts in more time at work, he sees no additional reward, and production is minimally affected. The worker receives the same stipend and ration as before. Therefore, this type of economy often results in poor production, mass poverty and little advancement. This occurred in the 1980s to the Soviet Union when poverty became so widespread, and rebellions and revolutions caused a dissolution of the nation.
Socialism shares similarities to communism but to a lesser extreme. As in communism, equality is the main focus. Instead of the workers owning the facilities and tools for production, workers are paid and allowed to spend their wages as they choose, while the governing body owns and operates the means of production for the benefit of the working class. Each worker is provided with necessities so he is able to produce without worry for his basic needs. Still, advancement and production are limited because there is no incentive to achieve more. Without motivation to succeed, such as the ability to own an income-producing business, workers’ human instincts prohibit drive and desire that is produced through such incentives.
Both communism and socialism are near opposites of capitalism, with no private ownership and class equality. In capitalism, reward comes naturally without limitation to workers who exceed the normal minimums. When there is excess production, the owner can freely keep it, and he has no obligations to share his spoils with anyone else. A capitalist environment facilitates competition, and the result is unlimited advancement opportunity.
In modern society, many countries have adopted pieces of socialism into their economic and political policies. For example, in the United Kingdom, markets are allowed to fluctuate rather freely, and workers have unlimited earning potential based on their work. However, basic needs like health care are provided to everyone regardless of time or effort in their work. The welfare programs like food stamps in the United States are also forms of socialist policies that fit into an otherwise capitalist society.
Before going on, I want to explain that all these forms of governance can work, however to depend on just any individual government’s integrity without checks and balance is asking a bit much. Communism and Socialism were observed and recognized, sans the name, in Afrikan communal cultures as far back as pre-Kimit, Pre-Sudan. What we see today is Socialism/Communism with a distinct savage twist of exploitation, built in. In an attempt to broaden Socialism, two distinct form of the ideology was introduced into the conversation. Democratic socialism, a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. And National Socialism, a system where democracy is defined as a government that protects and promotes the interests of the population, by utilizing the best of capitalism and socialism. under National Socialism, the lowest class individual can rise to the highest based on merit and not heritage.
But most people will reject National Socialists, because of its association to Adolph Hitler and the Nazis Party. Opponents of National Socialism, claim that they rejected liberal “democracy” and its party system, in which the illusion of a people’s governance is bolstered by a controlled system of “choices” that all invariably lead to the same end. in other words a two or multi party system, in which leadership is not decided by one man one vote, but by an electoral college, that is run by a selection committee. One so easily partisan and influenced by lobbyist, that voter fatigue and discontent is often present. Imagine how all these North amurdikkklan voting circuses looks like, and tell me again if rejecting the “democratic party system” doesn’t makes sense? I would like to spend a moment and expand on what i found out about Hitlers method of governance, that was both praised economically and hated politically. Adolf Hitler presented a legitimate alternative to the German people in his day, and was supported by the German people throughout his reign. After defeat to the Alies in WWI, the country ceded lands to Poland, France, Britain and the new country of Czechoslovakia was created out of the ashes of unified Germany. They had to devalue the marks and handed over industry. In fact they never finished paying for the that war until 2010. Then consider how long they will take to pay off WW2? It is safe to say that Germany is in the toilet and can only hope for reprieve, by bending over farther and accepting their fate. Is there any wonder why Germans, hoping to curry favor, are the second most ardent pursuers of Nazis supporters next to the Khazars?
The National Socialism, introduced to a depressed people, did not endorse tyranny; that is, a political apparatus that functions contrary to the interests of the people. the National Socialism, introduced to a depressed people, endorsed the leadership principle, the idea that a nation is best governed by those most capable of guiding their fellow citizens and providing for their common needs and wants, and what Hitler called Germanic democracy:
The [National Socialist] movement advocates the principle of a Germanic democracy: the leader is elected, but then enjoys unconditional authority. . . . All committees are subordinate to him and not he to the committees. He makes the decisions and hence bears the responsibility on his shoulders. Members of the movement are free to call him to account before the forum of a new election, to divest him of his office in so far as he has infringed on the principles of the movement or served its interests badly. His place is then taken by an abler, new man, enjoying, however, the same authority and the same responsibility. (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)
The closest I have seen to what Hitler did was what Thomas Sankara, attempted in Burkina Faso, after coming to power. There was several problems with his ascension, however. His was a bloodless coupe’, which many of his opponents (mostly France and her colonies and other European vultures) could state was undemocratic. What he failed to do was to abolish the opposition, even though he put them on trial for corruption. I sate this because in order to pull a country like Burkina Faso out of a depressed state, the last thing you need is the distraction of oppositional squabbles that interferes with everyday governance. The excellent : The Upright Man The Thomas Sankara Documentary, charts his rise to power and what he achieved in three years, that many other Afrikan leaders have yet to match in 10-20-30 years of power.
Hitler was a maverick politician, because he did everything he said he would do exactly as he said he would do it. Germany was in the grip of a huge depression, money was worthless, unemployment was massive and most of Germany’s industries that would make steel etc, had closed . Germany had lost the Ruhr valley and most of the heavy industry that added to the county’s GDP. It was not allowed to have a military so the lack of Government contracts etc, did not generate much needed work. Hitler put the people back to work , he built autobahns , reinvigorated industry and took back key economic areas of German land. Started a land army and institutionalized the rural farming outputs. He extended Germany’s borders to give Germans more “living space” (liebensraunm) and in the process resumed Czechoslovakia, half of Poland , the Ruhr and many more little areas , mostly rural. All the while the rest of Europe tried to operate in appeasement in order to avoid another world war .”
When i think how many Afrikan countries with more resources than Germany ever had. When i think about the government of Jamaica, selling off every single thing that wasn’t bolted down to foreigners and the politicians getting rich off of it. What it tells me is that until we are willing to unhitch the yoke of capitalism from around our necks, and go back to a traditional Afrikan rulership. Nothing can save us from utter destruction and or servitude. Not even your white geezus!