ICE Has Started to Arrest Judges

[FiveInch033]

Marxists are rare. I'm one of the biggest socialist Reds on the PB, and I'm not a Marxist!

You seem to think the Democrats are Marxists!

Marxists are rare. I'm one of the biggest socialist Reds on the PB, and I'm not a Marxist!

SAME THING.

Socialism and Marxism are the same thing. Marx said so, Lenin said so, Stalin said so.

LOL...LOL....LOL

YOU PROVED MY POINT THIS WHOLE TIME. YOU ARE IN DENIAL.

LOL...LOL...LOL

 

[Politruk]

Of course thy are.
Go by their platform...
High taxes, regulations, standardized medicine, welfaire, green new deal, Programs, PBS, gun control, minium wage, and the list goes on.

None of that is Marxism, nor any other form of socialism. It's all perfectly compatible with a capitalist market economy.

Are you aware that Roosvelt had a known Facist on his cabinet

Name?

Are you aware Facism was started by a Marxist Professor in Italy who didn't believe Communsism was extreme enough.

Mussolini was no professor, and that is no honest description of his political shift.

Are you aware the Nazi party started out as a Socialist party.

That is a lie, despite the party's name.

Are you aware Hitler liked Marx.

Hitler did not like Marx. He fiercely hated anything that smacked of Marxism.

Are you aware the idea of a "master race" came from Darwin.

That is a lie.

Darwin believed the lowest form of human was a black person.

And that is ordinary. Almost every white person of his day believed that, Abolitionists included.

Are you aware the woman who started Planned Parenthood was a Marxist and agreed with Darwin. Her vision was to have minorities kill their babies. I believe she referred to them as "lesser humans."

The religious right has spent decades misrepresenting Margaret Sanger, who was no Marxist, and was no more than ordinarily racist for her time, and those racist quotes are misattributed -- she never really said those things.

Are you aware there were two Nazi professors who after WW2 infltrated the Univerisieis to spread Marxist beliefs.

If they were Nazis, they weren't Marxist. That's like a Baptist Muslim.

Are you aware that Marxists took over public education in the late 1890's through the Teachers Union. There goal was to impliment Marxist beliefs a little at a time over generations. And to tare down America in the process.

I know those are all lies. Marxists have always been utterly frustrated trying to get influence in any American labor union. See It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States.

Go beyond what you were taught and reaserch orginal documents.

I know those a lot better than you do.

 

[IARainman]

That is a lie. You do not have the brains to earn a law degree.

I think he meant as a defendant.

 

[Politruk]

Marxists are rare. I'm one of the biggest socialist Reds on the PB, and I'm not a Marxist!

SAME THING.

No, it is not the same thing at all. Not all socialists are Marxists. The socialist movement existed before Marx joined it, and would have been better off without the pseudoscientific intellectual substructure Marx gave it. All forms of historical determinism are fundamentally unsound, and dialectical materialism is no exception.

Nowadays, Marxists are rare even in Communist countries. I doubt the Chinese Communist Party has a hundred members who really believe in Marxism. It is well known, now, that there were practically none in the Soviet Union, by the end.

 

[bijedi]

On August 30, 1823. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson commented on his authorship of the Declaration of Independence:
"I know that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiments which had never been express before...I pray God that these principles may be eternal, and close the prayer with my affectionate wishes for yourself of long life, health and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson stated:

A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian; that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825

Notice no mention of the Bible or Christianity.

You’re delusional. The evidence is there. Only Christian extremists believe your bullshit.

 

[Politruk]

The MEN who wrote the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were taught by these professors and believed these principles.

No, they were taught by professors of the Enlightenment, who had entirely different principles from those taught at Harvard in the 17th Century.

What's reason?
Believing in the lies of Marx and Darwin?
That's actually stupidity.

Marx and Darwin had no influence on the FFs, they lived in the 19th Century.
Marx told no lies, though he might have made errors.
Darwin, apart from his racism, made no errors to speak of. He pretty much got everything right, about evolutionary biology.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Wow this really turned into a thread for pencildick to demonstrate immense ignorance of history. Lol.

 

[Politruk]

Darwin, apart from his racism, made no errors to speak of. He pretty much got everything right, about evolutionary biology.

Darwin, by the way, did not come up with the idea of biological evolution -- by his time all scientifically literate people knew, from the fossil record, that evolution had occurred. Darwin figured out why evolution happens -- because of natural selection.

He never did figure out how evolution happens -- the science of genetics was still in its infancy -- in a monastery in Austria, Gregor Mendel was doing some experiments with green and yellow peas. The discovery of DNA and chromosomes was far in the future.

 

[Bray123]

People who think that Darwinism is lies are committed cultists who have never met a dog breeder.

In a few hundred years of selective breeding (where preferred characteristics are bred) wolves have been transformed into greyhounds, dachshunds and boxers.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

I understand history.
I understand Marxism in all of it's forms leads to tyranny.
I understand Marxism is a terrible religion
What is destroying this country is every Marxist idea.

You have no fucking clue what Marxism is.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Typical Marxist response. If you’re losing an argument… browbeat your adversary with slurs, slander and insults. You just proved his point.

You have no fucking clue what Marxism is

 

[Politruk]

People who think that Darwinism is lies are committed cultists who have never met a dog breeder.

In a few hundred years of selective breeding (where preferred characteristics are bred) wolves have been transformed into greyhounds, dachshunds and boxers.

The only reason anyone doubt biological evolution is that certain Protestant Christians (the Catholic Church accepts evolution) are committed to believing that everything the Bible says is literally, historically true.

Which is impossible. The Bible says Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod the Great, and during a Roman census. The first Roman census of Judea was not taken until ten years after Herod died. (The Romans would never conduct a census in one of their client kingdoms, only in their directly-ruled provinces, because they did not tax a client king's subjects directly, and the main purpose of a census was to facilitate tax collection.)

 

[Politruk]

This is where you are in denial...they all were...or most. Or they didn't believe they were but were in belief.

There is no such thing as a Marxist who does not know he is a Marxist. And there is no such thing as a Marxist who does not brag about it.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

They have been for a long time. They took over public education in the 1890's through the teachers union. Teddy Roosvelt was the first. It goes back that far.
The problem with Marxists is they are looking for a "utopia". You people want to believe, "It's never been tried". Marxism is a religion, you people don't want to see that EVERY TIME it's tried it fails. In America look at every blue state and you'll see how well it's working. If you are in the cult of Marxism you REFUSE to see the DEM party is Marxist. Why? Because it fails. Or you want Soviet Union style Marxism. Not understanding even the Marxists here realize the Soviet Style failed, what they are trying to create is Chinese Communism...which is a blend of Corporations and Government. So many of you REFUSE to see that there are corporations and the very wealthy that are trying to create Chinese Communism here.

If you are in the cult of Marxism it's difficult for you to see it can't work and it's a destructive Fantasy. The very premise of Marxism; that people are evil based upon their social economic status is what is at fault. Marxism in all of it forms NEVER WILL WORK. It always leads to a tyranny and into a dystopia.

The problem is if you are in the cult of Marxism you are looking for a utopia. Currently Marxist policy is around you but you refuse to see it because it never matches the hype.

EXAMPLE: It was the government who have destroyed American cities. It was the government who built the projects. It was the government who destroyed the medical system. It's the government who in the name of "Helping" the poor drove companies and small business into the ground to created unemployment. By stealing money from people who produce and giving that same money to sit on their asses created a whole underclass of poor. Theft never works, no matter if a thief goes into your house or if the government does it with laws. Who encouraged all this....MARXISTS.

MARXISM IS A CULT.

You have no fucking clue what Marxism is.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The MEN who wrote the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were taught by these professors and believed these principles.

What's reason?
Believing in the lies of Marx and Darwin?
That's actually stupidity.

Marxists reject Darwinism. Are you a Marxist?

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Marx told no lies, though he might have made errors.

I agree with you on many things, except your choice of terms here.
First of all, it is a social construct of ideas. The idea of a classless society as such is neither bad nor unsuccessful. Every monastery and every kibbutz functions in a similar way. The idea that a society only works if a few people mercilessly exploit the masses is as American as it is repulsive. To speak of a mistake by Marx here is, in my opinion, misguided.
You can disagree with him, but as long as he is not logically falsified, his views are not a mistake.
I don't share his ideas, but I recognise that they have a charm.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘Complete freedom of movement across borders is a Libertarian boondoggle that advantages capital at the expense of workers…’

Borders and immigration relate to global capitalist exploitation by dividing workers and perpetuating inequality. Borders weaken workers’ solidarity to enable wage suppression and erode working conditions, especially for migrants who often face lower pay and fewer protections.

Migration is driven mainly by systemic economic disparities. Addressing them means challenging a global economic system that fosters displacement and poverty.

A truly internationalist and Marxist approach advocates for the abolition of restrictive border policies, promoting free movement and cross-border unity among workers.

Ultimately, the fight for fair wages, decent working conditions, and the right to migrate freely is rooted in dismantling the capitalist structures that exploit labor across borders, emphasizing international solidarity and systemic change as essential for achieving social justice.

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘ … the Marxist Party of America (democrat party) …’

Oddly enough, the Marxist and Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party is the Democratic Party’s most persistent and principled critic.

The difference between their criticisms of the petit bourgeoisie, pseudo-left Democratic Party and your own is that ours are at least intelligent.

 

[Politruk]

I agree with you on many things, except your choice of terms here.
First of all, it is a social construct of ideas. The idea of a classless society as such is neither bad nor unsuccessful. Every monastery and every kibbutz functions in a similar way. The idea that a society only works if a few people mercilessly exploit the masses is as American as it is repulsive. To speak of a mistake by Marx here is, in my opinion, misguided.
You can disagree with him, but as long as he is not logically falsified, his views are not a mistake.
I don't share his ideas, but I recognise that they have a charm.

Marx' errors were in his historical determinism, in his theory of dialectical materialism. Pure pseudoscience. There is no good reason, none at all, to expect history to unfold as he predicted. There is not even any good reason to count class struggle as an important factor in historical change. In fact, the very existence of class struggle can be seriously questioned.

As a prescription for how to run an economy or society, Marxism is not discredited, because it never was that. Marx infamously failed to describe how things would work after the revolution -- he seems to have assumed that once a class-conscious proletariat burst the capitalist integument, everything would just fall into place, and what to do next would be obvious. So a centralized totalitarian Stalinist system has just as good a claim to be "Marxist" as a bunch of independent anarcho-syndicalist collectives.

 

[Politruk]

Oddly enough, the Marxist and Trotskyist Socialist Equality Party is the Democratic Party’s most persistent and principled critic.

The difference between their criticisms of the petit bourgeoisie, pseudo-left Democratic Party and your own is that ours are at least intelligent.

You may as well give up on Trotskyism. There has never been a Trotskyist state or system anywhere in the world, and there is no reason to expect there ever will be.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Marx' errors were in his historical determinism, in his theory of dialectical materialism. Pure pseudoscience. There is no good reason, none at all, to expect history to unfold as he predicted. There is not even any good reason to count class struggle as an important factor in historical change. In fact, the very existence of class struggle can be seriously questioned.

As a prescription for how to run an economy or society, Marxism is not discredited, because it never was that. Marx infamously failed to describe how things would work after the revolution -- he seems to have assumed that once a class-conscious proletariat burst the capitalist integument, everything would just fall into place, and what to do next would be obvious. So a centralized totalitarian Stalinist system has just as good a claim to be "Marxist" as a bunch of independent anarcho-syndicalist collectives.

I agree with you that the historical course of events is not determined, but I would like to point out that statistics, which has so far proved to be the most accurate method of predicting sufficiently large systems of independent monads, had not yet been developed at that time.
Karl Marx was a child of his time. In Britain at that time, booze was cheaper than bread, which is why parents gave their children alcohol to feed them, because otherwise they would have starved to death. Faced with the grimace of unbridled capitalism, what we call Marxism today was probably a mixture of desire and reason. To call it pseudo-scientific, I think, is to overshoot the mark.
Look at the USA. Those who are sick and poor die early. The "American dream" has been dead for a long time. Dishwashers don't become billionaires. You're rich if your parents are rich. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. Who wouldn't want to dream of a fair system? Is Steinbeck perhaps a liar?
Apart from that, at least in Europe, there are some organisations that are communist, at least in idea. Every co-operative works like that.

 

[Politruk]

Faced with the grimace of unbridled capitalism, what we call Marxism today was probably a mixture of desire and reason. To call it pseudo-scientific, I think, is to overshoot the mark.

No, it isn't -- because Marx claimed scientific status for his theories, and Marxists ever since have been talking nonsense about "scientific socialism.'

 

[butters]

I agree with you that the historical course of events is not determined, but I would like to point out that statistics, which has so far proved to be the most accurate method of predicting sufficiently large systems of independent monads, had not yet been developed at that time.
Karl Marx was a child of his time. In Britain at that time, booze was cheaper than bread, which is why parents gave their children alcohol to feed them, because otherwise they would have starved to death. Faced with the grimace of unbridled capitalism, what we call Marxism today was probably a mixture of desire and reason. To call it pseudo-scientific, I think, is to overshoot the mark.
Look at the USA. Those who are sick and poor die early. The "American dream" has been dead for a long time. Dishwashers don't become billionaires. You're rich if your parents are rich. There are exceptions, but they are extremely rare. Who wouldn't want to dream of a fair system? Is Steinbeck perhaps a liar?
Apart from that, at least in Europe, there are some organisations that are communist, at least in idea. Every co-operative works like that.

also less dangerous to drink than town/city dirty water from sources that hosted sewage and was a breeding ground for all the nasty diseases

 

[Holy_Seduction]

‘You may as well give up on Trotskyism. There has never been a Trotskyist state or system anywhere in the world, and there is no reason to expect there ever will be.’

Absence of a Trotskyist state doesn’t negate Trotskyist theory or analysis; it showcases the historical betrayals and distortions of revolutionary action by Stalinism and its petit bourgeoisie variants, including yours, which historically misrepresented, repressed and opposed Trotskyism. The social democratic tendency expends far too much labor doing these things to argue seriously that ‘there isn’t going to be a “Trotskyist state.”’ If your people believed that, you wouldn’t bother.

Would you.

Trotskyism’s revolutionary potential lies in its ability to analyze and respond to the changing, class struggle dynamics in a global context. Democrats can offer no framework to understand or address contemporary issues such as imperialism, war, and inequality; that would expose their own role in said global crimes. This is contrary to their interests.

From the DSA/DP perspective, the betrayal of working class interests is a mechanism necessary to preserve the petit bourgeoisie tendency. The DSA/DP refuse to accept the revolutionary prospects that true class struggle would engender. As socialism is the antidote to Capitalism’s final expression as fascism, the DSA/DP can only watch impotently as Trump burns the planet.

The standing need of permanent revolution and a powerful framework to address those issues arises from DSA/DP incapacity. The impetus arises from those deficiencies, linked to the social reality that humanity can live with Capitalism no longer.

 

[Politruk]

Absence of a Trotskyist state doesn’t negate Trotskyist theory or analysis; it showcases the historical betrayals and distortions of revolutionary action by Stalinism and its petit bourgeoisie variants, including yours, which historically misrepresented, repressed and opposed Trotskyism. The social democratic tendency expends far too much labor doing these things to argue seriously that ‘there isn’t going to be a “Trotskyist state.”’ If your people believed that, you wouldn’t bother.

Would you.

Trotskyism’s revolutionary potential lies in its ability to analyze and respond to the changing, class struggle dynamics in a global context. Democrats can offer no framework to understand or address contemporary issues such as imperialism, war, and inequality; that would expose their own role in said global crimes. This is contrary to their interests.

From the DSA/DP perspective, the betrayal of working class interests is a mechanism necessary to preserve the petit bourgeoisie tendency. The DSA/DP refuse to accept the revolutionary prospects that true class struggle would engender. As socialism is the antidote to Capitalism’s final expression as fascism, the DSA/DP can only watch impotently as Trump burns the planet.

The standing need of permanent revolution and a powerful framework to address those issues arises from DSA/DP incapacity. The impetus arises from those deficiencies, linked to the social reality that humanity can live with Capitalism no longer.

^^^^^ You see, fiveinch?! You see?! That's a Marxist!^^^^^

There are only two on the PB -- RandyRebecca is the other.