by realityfactchex | 2025-08-15 17:26:03+00:00
TFA says that

Court rules Marx is incompatible with the ‘free democratic basic order’

Yet, this seems exactly the opposite of what some socialists claim, which is that that socialism is a path to true free democracy.

It can be hard to be sure what is argued for by "classical", "modern", or "real" socialists or Marxists, from a classical, western, libertarian, conservative, or progressive perspective.

To try to understand the socialist perspective, from [0]:

"""Socialist revolution would be the means by which to create real, radical democracy. The Communist League, led by Marx and Engels, declared as their goal:

“a democratic State wherein each party would be able by word or in writing to win a majority over to its ideas…. We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse. . . . We have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced … that in no social order will personal freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership.” (16)

Workers would control the economy directly, via councils, election of their own managers. We would gain direct control of the national and multinational corporations, at the point of production. We would expropriate the billionaires, so, as unlikely as it will be to corrupt our truly democratic system, they would no longer have the wealth to even attempt to corrupt it. No, we would not make their lives miserable—as they are trying to make ours now. But they would have to work like anybody else. And they could no longer effect their current sociopathic, “transhuman” schemes against the rest of us.

For we would live in a society that would fulfill our needs, and enable us to enjoy unimaginable freedoms in a truly democratic community: not make a few sociopaths rich, or give them the obscene levels of destructive power over the rest of us they enjoy today."""

Meanwhile, a conflicting perspective from [1] appears to be that:

- "Sooner or later socialism destroys everything in hits path: law, morality, family, prosperity, productivity, education incentive, and finally life itself. The problem with socialism is it creates the conditions for a Stalin or a Hitler to come to power" - "Communism is the final phase and goal of socialism, simply described as big government... using force to take things from one person and give them to someone else."

Which correlates with the perspecives online that :

- "Fascism is exclusive to the Roman Empire, and socialism is the collectivism they push for more easily manageable slaves - like they've already done to the Chinese and are currently in the process of rolling out for the rest of the world."

and that

- "The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy: 1. Overload and Break the Welfare System 2. Have Chaos Ensue 3. Take Control in the Chaos 4. Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force"

Thus, seems clear that there is some explaining to be done. Anyone able to neatly resolve or explain the (apparently) starkly different outlooks on socialism?

It is also possible that some people believe that "true socialism" is not described by any of the above. If so, any links or insights along those lines would be welcome, too.

[0] https://redfireonline.com/2022/05/08/socialism-the-only-real... [1] Documentary video, "Grinding America Down"