Leninism vs Fabianism: Two Branches of Collectivism [Part 1]

G. Edward Griffin interviewed by Free Market News Network's John St. George on the two main branches of collectivism, Leninism and Fabianism.

Free Market News Network:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/

G. Edward Griffin's organization Freedom Force International:
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Edward
• Griffin
• socialism
• communism
• marxism
• collectivism
• individualism
• liberty
• world
• order
• Ron
• Paul

[louis12346]

Global warming is a hoax its for UN Carbon TAX

[nurbSoldier]

The United States is no hyperpower, it is a cripple with a scary costume. So long as it continues to bury itself in ever expanding debt, it will continue to dig its own grave.

[joepeeler34]

@Schniddo I agree with some of what you said, but the notion of the U.S. setting up free markets in other countries is in error. We don't have a free market in the U.S. We have a mixed economy with much socialism and corporatism (a kind of central planning) interjected. We don't care what the economic system of the country is so long as it is open to foreign investment and markets open to the west. Listen again to what Griffin is saying about the current system being Fabian Socialism.

[mikeoli]

@Pwecko I do not believe in monarchy so you are barking up the wrong tree

[Pwecko]

@Schniddo I hope everything works out well in Egypt and Tunisia. I won't hold my breath though. Did you look up Democracy: the god that failed? There's a lecture on YT. Very interesting. Worth a listen.

Earlier you said that now the minority rule. Yet don't we have democracy? If not, what is democracy? What should it look like? What examples will the new govts in Egypt and Tunisia be able to look to for guidance to help them set up their systems?

[Schniddo]

@Pwecko I am not talking about the US exporting (big 'D') democracy to countries i.e. setting up pro American / free market leaders. After all, the US supported people like Ben Ali, the Tunisian dictator of 20 or so years, who, in case you haven't been following the news, has just had to flee the country as the people rose up in protest and the unions declared a general strike. Real democracy is from below, as the Tunisians and the Egyptians are demonstrating.

[Pwecko]

@Schniddo Ask yourself why the American government always stresses that it wants to introduce democracy to all the 'backward' countries of the world. It knows that if a democratically elected government is in place in some Middle Eastern or African country, all it needs to do is control the leaders of that government and it can control the country. If there is no government, things are a lot more difficult.

Inequality is, unfortunately, inevitable. Attempts at creating equality cause bloodshed

[Schniddo]

@Pwecko As opposed to minority rule like we have now? Where those that control the majority of the world's wealth have the most say in policy? That's a non-argument to me, but people should only fear democracy if they want to maintain current levels of inequality.

[Pwecko]

@Schniddo You say that democracy is about people having control over their own lives. It is not. In a democracy, the majority rules. All you need to control the country is to ensure that you control the majority. Democracy is very over-rated. See Democracy, The God That Failed, by Hans Herman Hoppe.

[Schniddo]

One of the biggest fallacies is the belief that you could somehow have capitalism without a state. As long as there is capitalism, there will be inequality and private property, and as long as that is so, you ned somebody to protect that property for you don't you! Not to mention a population healthy and able to do all the work in society...

[Schniddo]

Of course all that matter is to come to power - the idea is for the soviets (i.e. workers councils) to take over the state. ONLY THEN would the state wither away because it would become irrelevant. The Soviet project failed in Russia because a) it was so backwards economically and b) the country was ravaged by civil war and foreign invasion.

[Schniddo]

Marxism isn't based in 'idealism'. A socialist may be idealistic but Marx is best known for his analysis of capitalism which to this day is unsurpassed. Disciplines such as sociology are completely indebted to his methodology. There is a reason why big capital is interested in using socialism as the big bogeyman to scare us - because ultimately capitalism at its most effective (for those who benefit) is when it is at its most undemocratic.