No, the Dems are not Communists

[CornusKousa]

If you aren't for racial equity to various degrees you are by definition a racist.

100% backwards.

You CAN'T have racial equity without discriminating against or offering advantages too different racial groups, literally Jim Crow.

I don't understand how people find this at all complicated.

Me either, you're the one advocating race based discrimination policy.

There are no Marxists in any meaningful way or number in the US. There just aren't and to claim otherwise is so intellectually dishonest that its hard to believe anybody TRULY thinks that their are.

No, a small number of violent "revolutionaries" or terrorist would deff qualify but they are a tiny group.

Most are democratic socialist with a very heavy Maoist influence.....they want us to vote for the totalitarian god state micromanaging every aspect of our lives.

 

[pecksniff]

That's the thing.
I understand that Marx was like Jekyll & Hyde.

Those who listened to those who read his economic proposals said they found him colectivistic and dangerous
those who, like myself listened to those who read his social psychology pieces -- beautiful. The kindest, most empowering view of human nature, in a time when people were viewed like vermin by social psychologists.

Could we put Marx into historical context?
What was happening at the time that made him overshoot his economical doctrines towards far Left, while his view of people was so moderate?

What was happening was the very rough initial phase of the Industrial Revolution, destroying the social safety nets of pre-industrial life, such as they were, and replacing them with nothing. It was easy to believe, then, that capitalism was simply reducing most people to wage-slavery. In fact, it's not difficult to believe now.

 

[CornusKousa]

That would not equate to "ethno-socialism," whatever that might be -- and whatever it might be, it ain't Commie, except in the old "RACE-MIXING IS COMMUNISM" sense.

Yes, that's exactly what socialism based on racial group is, ethno-socialism.

And it is commie within violent activist groups, their violent activism for socialist cause is what makes them commies instead of democratic socialist.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, that's exactly what socialism based on racial group is, ethno-socialism.

But, it's not socialism to begin with. Whatever else you might say about, e.g., affirmative action, it is not an instance of socialism.

And it is commie within violent activist groups, their violent activism for socialist cause is what makes them commies instead of democratic socialist.

No riot in the past two or three years has been "violent activism for socialist cause." Nor for any other cause. Nothing so purposeful as that. (Well, except for 1/6 -- that was purposeful, in its highly confused way.)

 

[CornusKousa]

But, it's not socialism to begin with. Whatever else you might say about, e.g., affirmative action, it is not an instance of socialism.

Oh REALLY?

So how without government control over the means and markets just how in the fuck do you plan on making all this racial equity happen??

Just going straight to enslaving whitey??

No riot in the past two or three years has been "violent activism for socialist cause." Nor for any other cause. Nothing so purposeful as that. (Well, except for 1/6 -- that was purposeful, in its highly confused way.)

I love it when you lie to yourself in such overt fashion.

 

[pecksniff]

Oh REALLY?

So how without government control over the means and markets just how in the fuck do you plan on making all this racial equity happen??

By regulations that don't amount to socialism, which AA never did. Really, that's like calling child labor laws socialism.

 

[pecksniff]

Most are democratic socialist with a very heavy Maoist influence.....

Contradiction in terms.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Contradiction in terms.

A buzzword salad.

 

[CornusKousa]

By regulations that don't amount to socialism, which AA never did.

No, AA is just good old fashioned institutionalized racism.

What kind of regulations?? Peck??

How are you going to get a couple Trillion dollars from whitey and 13% share of the economy to black people without taking it from whitey by force???

You can't peck....socialism will be required to create/force the equity.

Really, that's like calling child labor laws socialism.

No, this is just your attempt at obfuscating the reality that equity requires some degree of socialism.

Contradiction in terms.

Not at all.

Democratic socialist can very much push to rid or "progress" society away from it's old ideas, habits, customs and culture.

(D)'s have been at it for years now, they're very much democratic socialist.

 

[CornusKousa]

A buzzword salad.

Poor Rob, one of our resident Maoist (D)emocrats, mad because nothing tigers a lefty for being called out for the politics they allegedly support.



Rob: Yes I'm a Democrat all the way!! We absolutely need to progress society past it's old ideas, habits, customs and culture for a more equitable future for all!

Also Rob: Democratic socialist with a Maoist influence? That's buzzword salad!!!



As funny as peck, promoting hyper-racialized socialism, triggered as fuck when you call him an ethno-socialist.

LOL

 

[Champakian]

Not even their marginalized far-leftiest wing is anything scarier than social democrats.

How did this meme get started?

If you are a Communist/Socialist in a two-party system,
do you support the party that openly loathes you or
the party that shares many of your sympathies?

So, you are correct that being a Democrat does not make you a Commie SOB,
however, being a member of the Democrat Party is being part of their safe harbor.
It didn't used to be that way (see my sigline). So, the basis of this meme is easily discernible.

 

[bellisarius]

If you are a Communist/Socialist in a two-party system,
do you support the party that openly loathes you or
the party that shares many of your sympathies?

So, you are correct that being a Democrat does not make you a Commie SOB,
however, being a member of the Democrat Party is being part of their safe harbor.
It didn't used to be that way (see my sigline). So, the basis of this meme is easily discernible.

When the goals are in alignment how do you tell one from the other?

Take a look at what the democrat agenda is and how they propose to achieve those goals. Then go to the Communist Manifesto and read the goals outlined therein. The democrats are working towards an overpowered centralized government in charge of damn near every aspect of the citizens life.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Poor Rob, one of our resident Maoist **TWITCH** (D)emocrats, mad because nothing tigers a lefty for being called out for the politics they allegedly support. Rob: Yes I'm a Democrat all the way!! We absolutely need to progress society past it's old ideas, habits, customs and culture for a more equitable future for all!Also Rob: Democratic socialist **TWITCH** with a Maoist **TWITCH** influence? That's buzzword salad!!! As funny as peck, promoting hyper-racialized socialism**TWITCH**, triggered as fuck when you call him an ethno-socialist**TWITCH**.

LOL

You really should take your meds before shitposting your histrionic buzzword salads at 3 a.m.

 

[pecksniff]

Democratic socialist can very much push to rid or "progress" society away from it's old ideas, habits, customs and culture.

That doesn't make it "Maoist." Mao has no copyright on that idea, it goes back to the Enlightenment -- in fact, it goes back to the advent of Christianity.

 

[pecksniff]

So, you are correct that being a Democrat does not make you a Commie SOB,
however, being a member of the Democrat Party is being part of their safe harbor.

The CPUSA nowadays usually endorses the Dem for president instead of running their own candidate -- which makes sense in the kind of electoral system we have; about the Dems it implies nothing except that their politics are marginally more acceptable than the Pubs'.

 

[pecksniff]

Take a look at what the democrat agenda is and how they propose to achieve those goals. Then go to the Communist Manifesto and read the goals outlined therein.

The only points of resemblance are about things our society got behind centuries ago, such as public education and progressive income tax.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Not even their marginalized far-leftiest wing is anything scarier than social democrats.

How did this meme get started?

“Social Democrats” = socialists which is damn near the same thing. Fuck the left! All of them!

 

[pecksniff]

How are you going to get a couple Trillion dollars from whitey and 13% share of the economy to black people without taking it from whitey by force???

Very, very gradually -- Great Society-style.

No, this is just your attempt at obfuscating the reality that equity requires some degree of socialism.

How does AA differ from child labor laws? Both involve government directives about who private businesses should and shouldn't hire -- but neither is socialism.

 

[pecksniff]

“Social Democrats” = socialists which is damn near the same thing. Fuck the left! All of them!

Not really. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some sense the socialization of some significant part of the means of production. (Democratic socialism has never yet been tried, unless you count Venezuela.) You won't find much of that in social democracies -- they're all about the welfare state and redistributive taxes.

Your problem, as with much of the RW, is that you see the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope -- you can't make out the distinctions; but they are both real and important. There's Communism, then to the right of that democratic socialism, then to the right of that social democracy, then to the right of that what Americans call liberalism. And on that spectrum the Dems for the most part ain't even liberal any more -- they took a hard-right turn in the 1990s. During which period I saw a bumper sticker reading "CLINTON FOR CHANGE," with the C's rendered as hammers-and-sickles.

 

[WillJ8787]

Not really. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some sense the socialization of some significant part of the means of production. (Democratic socialism has never yet been tried, unless you count Venezuela.) You won't find much of that in social democracies -- they're all about the welfare state and redistributive taxes.

Your problem, as with much of the RW, is that you see the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope -- you can't make out the distinctions; but they are both real and important. There's Communism, then to the right of that democratic socialism, then to the right of that social democracy, then to the right of that what Americans call liberalism. And on that spectrum the Dems for the most part ain't even liberal any more -- they took a hard-right turn in the 1990s. During which period I saw a bumper sticker reading "CLINTON FOR CHANGE," with the C's rendered as hammers-and-sickles.

Chuckles....I've often ask myself what is the difference between a Republican, in a million dollar home and driving a BMW and. Democratic in a million dollar home driving a BMW?

 

[pecksniff]

Chuckles....I've often ask myself what is the difference between a Republican, in a million dollar home and driving a BMW and. Democratic in a million dollar home driving a BMW?

The difference is that the Democrat just might possibly at some time in his life have contributed to a labor union or something similar.

To some RWs, that alone would be enough to make the Democrat a Communist.

 

[CornusKousa]

You really should take your meds before shitposting your histrionic buzzword salads at 3 a.m.

There was nothing histrionic about my post.

You're just triggered by facts and can't put an argument together to refute anything said.

 

[CornusKousa]

That doesn't make it "Maoist." Mao has no copyright on that idea, it goes back to the Enlightenment -- in fact, it goes back to the advent of Christianity.

Yes it does.

Yup, but Mao was the one who used and applied it as a methodology for a socialist cultural revolution.

(D)'s are applying it in the same way, because they like how Mao did things, because they are Maoist.

Very, very gradually -- Great Society-style.

That's not going to create equity.

You can't get a direct wealth/resource transfer from that.

How does AA differ from child labor laws? Both involve government directives about who private businesses should and shouldn't hire -- but neither is socialism.

You have to have direct discrimination, or socialism. Which go hand in hand together in most cases anyhow and (D)'s seem keen on both.

AA is racial discrimination, CLL is age discrimination against a group of people we've deemed unable to make their own choices.


They are a key component of socialism, control and administration of the means of production. I a liberal, free and capitalist system employment is voluntary and none of the governments fucking business beyond getting their cut.

Democratic socialism has never yet been tried, unless you count Venezuela.

Yea that democratic socialist state, kinda shits all over you point blank false statement that it's never been tried.

You won't find much of that in social democracies -- they're all about the welfare state and redistributive taxes.

And strict control over the economy.

Your problem, as with much of the RW, is that you see the whole left side of the spectrum through the wrong end of a telescope -- you can't make out the distinctions; but they are both real and important.

It's only important to the talking heads who enjoy discussing theory.

Because in practical applications at the end of the day you guys are ALL looking to mooch off the productive people, forcefully, by the state.

 

[vastiesmith100]

NO they're not! They're

destroyers of American and IMHO assholes

 

[Rightguide]

Not even their marginalized far-leftiest wing is anything scarier than social democrats.

How did this meme get started?

Communists got a foothold in the Democrat party because you're naïve and ignorant. There's a reason why at Antifa and BLM demonstrations the Communist hammer and sickle are commonplace. There's a reason why there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the CPUSA's platform and the Democrat Party platform. There's a reason why the CPUSA supports Democrat candidates. There's a reason why people supporting Marxism and Communist ideals run as Democrats, like Raphael Warnock. So please do not bore us with your transparent attempts to gas light us about the non-existence of Communist ideals in the Democrat Party when such people are running the party, and controlling it's messaging.