It isn't your grandfather's LEFT anymore

[Rumpole]

Communism has evolved since the days of Marx.
Example would be China.

What exists in China is not communism. It's dictatorial/capitalism/socialism. The fact that the party that runs the country calls itself 'communist' is really an afterthought.

 

[strollingbones]

I enjoy being a girl. And I was born that way.

were you born an idiot too? this is just a bullshit post....looking at the evil of the left while overlooking bush's war..trumps sexual crimes etc...hypocrite much ?

 

[basquebromance]

you could argue the opposite of this thread's title is true

for example, in 2016, Elizabeth Warren (Pocahontas) refused to run in the Dem primary against Secretary Clinton (Crooked Hillary) for the sake of party unity

back in the day, Kennedy ran against Carter

 

[TruthNotBS]

'Commie' probably will have myriad definitions among those who use the term. But it is important to see how the left's philosophy/point of view/agenda fits in with Marxist doctrines. All leftists want the government to provide cradle to grave security, benefits, quality of life, equality, etc. etc. etc. But what they do not see or want to see is a government big and powerful enough to give you everything you want will dictate what you will have and can take anything from you or do anything to you that it wants to do.

In effect they want a benevolent dictatorship that will create the Utopia Marx envisioned communism would be once it got through the totalitarian phase.

It sound noble. But it ignores human nature. Those who receive without earning it have no incentive to earn what they have. Those who work and are denied the ability to enjoy the fruit of their labor because they must support those who won't work will have much less incentive to work. And that cycle results in less opportunity for all but those in the government and their agents to prosper. And that benevolent dictator rarely turns out to be so benevolent, but by the time he/they have the power, the people are powerless to do anything about it. And once a government achieves total power, it has never in all of history voluntarily relinquished that power.

'Commie' probably will have myriad definitions among those who use the term. But it is important to see how the left's philosophy/point of view/agenda fits in with Marxist doctrines. All leftists want the government to provide cradle-to-grave security, benefits, quality of life, equality, etc. etc. etc. But what they do not see or want to see is a government big and powerful enough to give you everything you want will dictate what you will have and can take anything from you or do anything to you that it wants to do.

Notice how today we hardly own anything as we used to. I remember back in the day, when I used to purchase a piece of software, it was actually mine. I would have it on CD or it would be installed on my computer. Today, some of the most popular software programs, are sold by subscription and you have to "log in" to use the darn thing. The product you purchased is no longer in your possession. That's just one example.

Farmers purchase tractors that can't be repaired unless it's a mechanic from the tractor company. They can actually control your tractor from their company headquarters and even turn it off for good if you try to repair it yourself.

A family a few weeks ago, was locked out of their home by Amazon because they were accused of being rude to one of their customer service reps. They locked the whole family out of their "Amazon-managed/automated" house and turned everything off.

Private corporations are like little tyrant government dictatorships. Most people who work a 9 to 5 job, aren't working in a democracy. There aren't any elections at work. The workplace is run like a totalitarian regime. If the employer doesn't like you, he'll fire you and you'll have to find another dictator to rent your labor-power (your life) to.

In effect they want a benevolent dictatorship that will create the Utopia Marx envisioned communism would be once it got through the totalitarian phase.

All governments are dictatorships. It's either the dictatorship of the rich and powerful, buying politicians to do their bidding, often at the expense of the public. Or, it's a dictatorship that is more inclined towards the public good. I as a working-class person, who has to work to eat and have a roof over his head, prefer the dictatorship of the majority, or the public, than the dictatorship of a small minority of wealthy elites.

It sound noble. But it ignores human nature.

The human nature canard is always conveniently in favor of the rich having power and exploiting everyone else. Supposedly, human nature can only allow a system of production where a small minority of exploiters own everything and the vast majority of people sell their lives to them for an hourly wage. Goods and services always have to be mass-produced for a profit and the rich must always own the means of production (the facilities, machinery). That's one of those pearl-clutching arguments the rich make to justify their greed and hubris.

"Capitalism, with all of its exploitation and gross inequality is just human nature man. That's as good as we could ever do it. Capitalism is eternal and that's about it...."

That's what the capitalists and their brainwashed, working-class slaves always say.

The reality is that for tens of thousands of years, humanity was like this:

Primitive Communism​

Cooperation, working together to survive and accomplish objectives, to secure access to vital resources, was the first system of production. That was the social order for tens of thousands of years.

Both primitive production at the tribal level and mass production at a national scale are social enterprises, not private ones. It can only be accomplished with people working together. The rich guy with the factory and machines is an unnecessary middleman. They exist, because society allows them to own all of the factories and the machinery of production (the "means of production"). If society decided that all property that is used to produce goods and services must be owned by the workers (collectively), who work on the property, with the machines, then that would be the end of capitalists (no more middlemen and parasites exploiting other people's labor).

Today if workers get together to start a labor cooperative, that will be owned by the workers and run democratically, they will have to fund it themselves, with cash or their credit cards. The SBA (Small Business Administration) will not secure a loan for them and all of the banks, including credit unions, will not loan them any "start-up" cash. But these private companies get plenty of help from Uncle Sam:

RANK	PARENT	SUBSIDY VALUE.	NUMBER OF AWARDS
1	Boeing	$15,136,286,466	946
2	Intel	$8,371,896,017	133
3	Ford Motor	$7,761,916,195	815
4	General Motors	$7,594,509,872	990
5	Micron Technology	$6,785,681,915	18
6	Alcoa	$5,798,600,778	160
7	X-Energy LLC	$5,661,511,202	17
8	General Atomics	$5,465,529,295	438
9	Cheniere Energy	$5,431,565,870	41
10	Amazon.com	$5,051,773,349	332
11	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,827,036,483	76
12	Sempra Energy	$3,835,098,001	53
13	Southern Company	$3,783,360,569	130
14	NRG Energy	$3,586,516,301	268
15	Venture Global LNG	$3,285,883,566	6
16	NextEra Energy	$3,003,823,754	117
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,836,366,619	116
18	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
19	Stellantis	$2,800,442,867	230
20	Volkswagen	$2,740,983,143	222
21	General Electric	$2,529,193,561	1,668
22	Nucor	$2,514,358,340	158
23	Walt Disney	$2,421,304,588	248
24	Brookfield Asset Management	$2,339,430,278	304
25	Iberdrola	$2,285,768,043	112
26	Summit Power	$2,240,568,236	8
27	Shell PLC	$2,184,517,527	141
28	Oracle	$2,167,890,528	88
29	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
30	Nike	$2,104,917,829	138
31	Hyundai Motor	$2,072,957,848	27
32	SCS Energy	$1,927,236,683	10
33	Archer Daniels Midland	$1,920,305,787	1,099
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,891,153,489	207
35	NuScale Power	$1,880,780,589	34
36	Toyota	$1,864,826,689	198
37	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,859,775,471	1,158
38	Nissan	$1,842,314,165	86
39	Alphabet Inc.	$1,832,565,977	116
40	Paramount Global	$1,751,801,882	317
41	Apple Inc.	$1,750,043,420	36
42	Comcast	$1,722,467,426	376
43	JPMorgan Chase	$1,663,890,873	1,129
44	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,654,401,303	137
45	Energy Transfer	$1,634,074,422	106
46	Samsung	$1,586,310,806	70
47	PG&E Corp.	$1,568,027,901	27
48	IBM Corp.	$1,562,738,626	387
49	SkyWest	$1,550,492,958	683
50	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$1,532,854,012	3
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	Panasonic	$1,385,969,341	61
53	Raytheon Technologies	$1,322,899,721	952
54	Duke Energy	$1,318,084,164	69
55	Lockheed Martin	$1,302,847,415	337
56	Corning Inc.	$1,272,628,059	395
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,266,804,354	266
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,243,857,336	32
61	Microsoft	$1,153,690,869	103
62	Jefferies Financial Group	$1,120,662,497	18
63	Meta Platforms Inc.	$1,105,098,844	53
64	Dow Inc.	$1,091,152,544	686
65	Abengoa	$1,082,660,583	63
66	LG	$1,055,690,737	103
67	Valero Energy	$1,054,520,860	199
68	Exelon	$1,040,601,369	98
69	AES Corp.	$1,010,194,632	132
70	CF Industries	$982,271,715	129
71	Pyramid Companies	$966,050,097	91
72	EDF-Electricite de France	$940,247,983	65
73	Texas Instruments	$940,071,436	60
74	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
75	Air Products & Chemicals	$897,651,105	248
76	Delta Air Lines	$876,412,623	14
77	Centene	$875,064,432	54
78	Bayer	$849,175,809	202
79	Honda	$846,026,154	91
80	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	83
81	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$826,062,285	104
82	SunEdison	$812,753,318	119
83	Apollo Global Management	$804,565,970	471
84	Goldman Sachs	$801,573,386	255
85	E.ON	$782,609,880	38
86	Wolfspeed Inc.	$773,681,732	88
87	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
88	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
89	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$725,632,525	206
90	Gotion	$715,000,000	1
91	American Electric Power	$699,673,821	92
92	Bank of America	$698,760,073	919
93	Johnson Controls	$691,180,720	144
94	Related Companies	$687,200,000	1
95	Caithness Energy	$670,379,738	28
96	Hyannis Air Service Inc.	$667,928,778	296
97	Koch Industries	$662,557,530	486
98	Sagamore Development	$660,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy	$640,858,559	64

Plenty of help for them. They get ALL of the government assistance, from Uncle Sam. How about helping workers start labor cooperatives, that are run democratically, owned collectively by the employees, who work the business? Do you know why there's no help at all for them? Because the system is rigged against working-class people creating a type of business model that will outcompete the privately owned, for-profit businesses.

In the not-too-distant future, as advanced automation and artificial intelligence continue to develop, there will be a need to adopt a non-profit system of production. When this happens:

​

We're not going to be able to maintain capitalism for much longer, due to its dependence on wage labor. Without wages, there are no paying customers. No markets to profit from. The whole capitalist system collapses due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

Those who receive without earning it have no incentive to earn what they have.

Oh, you're talking about all of those rich folks who inherited their money from daddy and mommy? Or people who were lucky, got some breaks, and made a lot of money and now due to their money, don't have to work anymore. They have other people slaving for them. How about that? Who's the parasite? In capitalism, you need capital to make capital. Money to make money. Once you have a certain amount of money, it's easy to make more of it. You don't even have to work anymore. Do rich people still work hard? Sure, some do, even though they don't have to work to eat or have a roof over their heads. They can spend the rest of their lives at the beach. But they still work. How about that? Guess human nature isn't as simple as you assert.

Those who work and are denied the ability to enjoy the fruit of their labor because they must support those who won't work will have much less incentive to work.

That sounds a lot like capitalism. People working for people who don't want to work. There are some employers, especially small business owners, who work, just as hard as their employees. But in general, many employers, especially the wealthy ones, aren't working nearly as hard as their employees, if at all. It's the working class who puts their health and lives at risk. They move to another city to work that job. They get in debt in order to buy a house near their work. The working class, are always taking risks. Living requires taking risks. That's just part of being alive. Life = Risk.

The employers or perhaps I should call them EXPLOITERS, always pay their employees/exploitees, less than what they produce. That's how they make money (a profit). They extract capital from the surplus value of the labor of their employees. They'll give you $100 daily, and you take home about $80 after taxes and social security. etc. But you produced $800 in goods and services for your employer. There's a reason Adam Smith, the father of capitalism calls capitalist employers "masters". The relationship between an employer and an employee under capitalism, is not that much different than the relationship between masters and their slaves or feudal lords and their serfs. It's a tiny bit better, but not that much.

Adan Smith writes:

" What are the common wages of labor, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (combine = unionize) in order to raise, and the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (the rich unionize as well: chamber of commerce, super PACs, industry associations, guilds, armies of lobbyists, think tanks...etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations)

EMPHASIS MINE

​

 

[Curried Goats]

'Commie' probably will have myriad definitions among those who use the term. But it is important to see how the left's philosophy/point of view/agenda fits in with Marxist doctrines. All leftists want the government to provide cradle-to-grave security, benefits, quality of life, equality, etc. etc. etc. But what they do not see or want to see is a government big and powerful enough to give you everything you want will dictate what you will have and can take anything from you or do anything to you that it wants to do.

Notice how today we hardly own anything as we used to. I remember back in the day, when I used to purchase a piece of software, it was actually mine. I would have it on CD or it would be installed on my computer. Today, some of the most popular software programs, are sold by subscription and you have to "log in" to use the darn thing. The product you purchased is no longer in your possession. That's just one example.

Farmers purchase tractors that can't be repaired unless it's a mechanic from the tractor company. They can actually control your tractor from their company headquarters and even turn it off for good if you try to repair it yourself.

A family a few weeks ago, was locked out of their home by Amazon because they were accused of being rude to one of their customer service reps. They locked the whole family out of their "Amazon-managed/automated" house and turned everything off.

Private corporations are like little tyrant government dictatorships. Most people who work a 9 to 5 job, aren't working in a democracy. There aren't any elections at work. The workplace is run like a totalitarian regime. If the employer doesn't like you, he'll fire you and you'll have to find another dictator to rent your labor-power (your life) to.

In effect they want a benevolent dictatorship that will create the Utopia Marx envisioned communism would be once it got through the totalitarian phase.

All governments are dictatorships. It's either the dictatorship of the rich and powerful, buying politicians to do their bidding, often at the expense of the public. Or, it's a dictatorship that is more inclined towards the public good. I as a working-class person, who has to work to eat and have a roof over his head, prefer the dictatorship of the majority, or the public, than the dictatorship of a small minority of wealthy elites.

It sound noble. But it ignores human nature.

The human nature canard is always conveniently in favor of the rich having power and exploiting everyone else. Supposedly, human nature can only allow a system of production where a small minority of exploiters own everything and the vast majority of people sell their lives to them for an hourly wage. Goods and services always have to be mass-produced for a profit and the rich must always own the means of production (the facilities, machinery. That's one of those pearl-clutching arguments the rich make to justify their greed and hubris.

The reality is that for tens of thousands of years, humanity was like this:

View attachment 797788


View attachment 797789

View attachment 797790

Primitive Communism​

Cooperation, working together to survive and accomplish objectives, to secure access to vital resources, was the first system of production. That was the social order for tens of thousands of years.

Both primitive production at the tribal level and mass production at a national scale are social enterprises, not private ones. It can only be accomplished with people working together. The rich guy with the factory and machines is an unnecessary middleman. They exist, because society allows them to own all of the factories and the machinery of production (the "means of production"). If society decided that all property that is used to produce goods and services must be owned by the workers (collectively), who work on the property, with the machines, then that would be the end of capitalists (no more middlemen and parasites exploiting other people's labor).

Today if workers get together to start a labor cooperative, that will be owned by the workers and run democratically, they will have to fund it themselves, with cash or their credit cards. The SBA (Small Business Administration) will not secure a loan for them and all of the banks, including credit unions, will not loan them any "start-up" cash. But these private companies get plenty of help from Uncle Sam:

RANK	PARENT	SUBSIDY VALUE.	NUMBER OF AWARDS
1	Boeing	$15,136,286,466	946
2	Intel	$8,371,896,017	133
3	Ford Motor	$7,761,916,195	815
4	General Motors	$7,594,509,872	990
5	Micron Technology	$6,785,681,915	18
6	Alcoa	$5,798,600,778	160
7	X-Energy LLC	$5,661,511,202	17
8	General Atomics	$5,465,529,295	438
9	Cheniere Energy	$5,431,565,870	41
10	Amazon.com	$5,051,773,349	332
11	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,827,036,483	76
12	Sempra Energy	$3,835,098,001	53
13	Southern Company	$3,783,360,569	130
14	NRG Energy	$3,586,516,301	268
15	Venture Global LNG	$3,285,883,566	6
16	NextEra Energy	$3,003,823,754	117
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,836,366,619	116
18	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
19	Stellantis	$2,800,442,867	230
20	Volkswagen	$2,740,983,143	222
21	General Electric	$2,529,193,561	1,668
22	Nucor	$2,514,358,340	158
23	Walt Disney	$2,421,304,588	248
24	Brookfield Asset Management	$2,339,430,278	304
25	Iberdrola	$2,285,768,043	112
26	Summit Power	$2,240,568,236	8
27	Shell PLC	$2,184,517,527	141
28	Oracle	$2,167,890,528	88
29	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
30	Nike	$2,104,917,829	138
31	Hyundai Motor	$2,072,957,848	27
32	SCS Energy	$1,927,236,683	10
33	Archer Daniels Midland	$1,920,305,787	1,099
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,891,153,489	207
35	NuScale Power	$1,880,780,589	34
36	Toyota	$1,864,826,689	198
37	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,859,775,471	1,158
38	Nissan	$1,842,314,165	86
39	Alphabet Inc.	$1,832,565,977	116
40	Paramount Global	$1,751,801,882	317
41	Apple Inc.	$1,750,043,420	36
42	Comcast	$1,722,467,426	376
43	JPMorgan Chase	$1,663,890,873	1,129
44	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,654,401,303	137
45	Energy Transfer	$1,634,074,422	106
46	Samsung	$1,586,310,806	70
47	PG&E Corp.	$1,568,027,901	27
48	IBM Corp.	$1,562,738,626	387
49	SkyWest	$1,550,492,958	683
50	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$1,532,854,012	3
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	Panasonic	$1,385,969,341	61
53	Raytheon Technologies	$1,322,899,721	952
54	Duke Energy	$1,318,084,164	69
55	Lockheed Martin	$1,302,847,415	337
56	Corning Inc.	$1,272,628,059	395
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,266,804,354	266
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,243,857,336	32
61	Microsoft	$1,153,690,869	103
62	Jefferies Financial Group	$1,120,662,497	18
63	Meta Platforms Inc.	$1,105,098,844	53
64	Dow Inc.	$1,091,152,544	686
65	Abengoa	$1,082,660,583	63
66	LG	$1,055,690,737	103
67	Valero Energy	$1,054,520,860	199
68	Exelon	$1,040,601,369	98
69	AES Corp.	$1,010,194,632	132
70	CF Industries	$982,271,715	129
71	Pyramid Companies	$966,050,097	91
72	EDF-Electricite de France	$940,247,983	65
73	Texas Instruments	$940,071,436	60
74	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
75	Air Products & Chemicals	$897,651,105	248
76	Delta Air Lines	$876,412,623	14
77	Centene	$875,064,432	54
78	Bayer	$849,175,809	202
79	Honda	$846,026,154	91
80	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	83
81	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$826,062,285	104
82	SunEdison	$812,753,318	119
83	Apollo Global Management	$804,565,970	471
84	Goldman Sachs	$801,573,386	255
85	E.ON	$782,609,880	38
86	Wolfspeed Inc.	$773,681,732	88
87	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
88	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
89	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$725,632,525	206
90	Gotion	$715,000,000	1
91	American Electric Power	$699,673,821	92
92	Bank of America	$698,760,073	919
93	Johnson Controls	$691,180,720	144
94	Related Companies	$687,200,000	1
95	Caithness Energy	$670,379,738	28
96	Hyannis Air Service Inc.	$667,928,778	296
97	Koch Industries	$662,557,530	486
98	Sagamore Development	$660,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy	$640,858,559	64

Plenty of help for them. They get ALL of the help, from Uncle Sam. How about helping workers start labor cooperatives, that are run democratically, owned collectively by the employees, who work the business? Do you know why there's no help at all for them? Because the system is rigged against working-class people creating a type of business that will outcompete the privately owned, for-profit businesses.

In the not-too-distant future, as advanced automation and artificial intelligence continue to develop, there will be a need to adopt a non-profit system of production. When this happens:

​

You can't maintain capitalism, due to its dependence on wage labor. Without wages, there are no paying customers. No markets to profit from. The whole capitalist system collapses due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

Those who receive without earning it have no incentive to earn what they have.

Oh, you're talking about all of those rich folks who inherited their money from daddy and mommy? Or people who were lucky got some breaks, and made a lot of money and now due to their money, don't have to work anymore. They have other people slaving for them. How about? Who's the parasite? In capitalism, you need capital to make capital. Money to make money. Once you have a certain amount of money, it's easy to make more of it. You don't even have to work anymore. Do rich people still work hard? Sure, some do, even though they don't have to work to eat or have a roof over their heads. They can spend the rest of their lives at the beach. But they still work. How about? Guess human nature isn't as simple as you assert.

Those who work and are denied the ability to enjoy the fruit of their labor because they must support those who won't work will have much less incentive to work.

That sounds a lot like capitalism. People working for people who don't want to work. There are some employers, especially small business owners, who work, just as hard as their employees. But in general, many employers, especially the wealthy ones, aren't working nearly as hard as their employees, if at all. It's the working class who puts their health and lives at risk. They move to another city to work that job. They get in debt in order to buy a house near their work. The working class, are always taking risks. Living requires taking risks.

The employers or perhaps I should call them EXPLOITERS, will pay their employees/exploitees, less than what they produce. That's how they make money (a profit). They extract capital from the surplus value of the labor of their employees. They'll give you $100 daily, and you take home about $80 after taxes and social security. etc. But you produced $800 in goods and services for your employer. There's a reason Adam Smith, the father of capitalism calls capitalist employers "masters". The relationship between an employer and an employee under capitalism, is not that much different than the relationship between masters and their slaves or feudal lords and their serfs. It's a tiny bit better, but not that much.

Adan Smith writes:

" What are the common wages of labor, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (combine = unionize) in order to raise, and the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (the rich unionize as well: chamber of commerce, super PACs, industry associations, guilds, armies of lobbyists, think tanks...etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Wealth Of Nations)

EMPHASIS MINE

You are so confused.....


Corporations want love tyrant dictatorships so they can create a Marxist utopia? Putting those two things together doesn't even make any sense. Marxist Utopias is all about revolution against the corporate and investment class.

 

[sparky]

My question is though, how did they get that way? Why did they get that way?

What I want to know is how did they get that way?

nailing jelly Fox.........

And maybe it was that unbridled hatred turned into militant malice that has ripped the fabric of the country apart. It wasn't Patriots who did that.

yes well, who is manipulating who with guttural emotional response ?

The government should be small, efficient, effective, solely responsible to the citizens who elected it, and held in check by a Constitution that allowed it to do only what the Constitution granted it authority to do.

Yet we've evolved to be an overbearing, inefficient and ineffective ,ignoring our true constituency no longer respecting constitutional restraints or philosophies......

In fact in almost every case in which leftism has overthrown the traditional ruling classes, a much worse totalitarianism has replaced those ruling classes

a rather repetitive scenario at that......

Could it happen in the USA? It absolutely could. In fact I believe it will if there are not enough Patriots left standing to defend our flag, Constitution, and the Republic they represent.

I'd take caution to the term patriot Fox

We've come to the point of political evolution to where one man's patriot is another's domestic terrorist

And we will continue to evolve , as i suspect most who've been around for a while would agree this isn't the same county we grew up in

from the wayback machine>>>

~S~

 

[Moonglow]

Vandalizing, stealing, burning, breaking/entering, assaulting, terrorizing, murdering during most of the summer of 2020 is not 'all talk.' Funding corrupt D.A.s, threatening/intimidating judges, even Supreme Court justices is not 'all talk.' Grooming children via public school curriculum, entertainment, recreation, propaganda, marketing techniques is not 'all talk.' Perpetuating and stirring up racism again via school curriculum, marketing, law suits, media/advertising, suspensions and firings is not 'all talk.' Silencing all speech but the leftist mantras and agenda is not 'all talk.' Falsely accusing people and attempting to frame them is not 'all talk.'

I could go on and on but I think that makes my point.

Leftism, even that which is intended to do no one any harm, is a failed concept because it ignores some basic truths of humanity.

Some examples:

As Benjamin Franklin once observed in 1776, in his world travels he found that when the poor were made more comfortable in their poverty, they did less for themselves and became poorer. When less was done for them they did more for themselves and became richer. Irresponsibility or dependency should never be encouraged but it is a cornerstone of leftist ideology.

While the Bible teaches us to visit those in prison, heal the sick, care for the least among us who are unable to speak or care for themselves, it also teaches us to not be a burden on others, pay our own way, let he who will not work not eat. The left count it as moral and righteous for the government to just throw more and more money at problems and then lack of improvement or results or counterproductive detriment can just be ignored.

The left buys into the religion of climate change and condemns those who point out that the trillions of dollars, manpower, resources, etc. that have gone into the green energy efforts have not reduced CO2 by a single particle so far as we know. And there is zero evidence that further efforts no matter how draconian or counterproductive to quality of life, choices, options, opportunity, will do anything to reduce or even slow down CO2 in the atmosphere. And any of us who point that out are condemned as being anti-science or some such nonsense.

The left have compassion for the poor people migrating to the USA. So much compassion they turn a blind eye to what these people risk when they come here, the child and sex and drug trafficking, the brutality of the cartels, the humanitarian crisis created by such large masses of people with no resources, nowhere to go, no means to support themselves, and the criminal element among them that are wrecking havoc on American citizens. And they know in their heart that trying to support all the world's poor will so drain our resources that we will reduce ourselves to poverty and being unable to help anybody anywhere but it is so politically incorrect to say so none have the courage to say it.

Better is bread with a happy heart than wealth with vexation. -Amenemop

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[TruthNotBS]

You are so confused.....


Corporations want love tyrant dictatorships so they can create a Marxist utopia? Putting those two things together doesn't even make any sense. Marxist Utopias is all about revolution against the corporate and investment class.

The large text you were responding to, wasn't mine. It was written by the person I was responding to.

 

[Curried Goats]

The large text you were responding to, wasn't mine. It was written by the person I was responding to.

Carry on then.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Well, you can't be a fascist until you obtain power.

Then when they attain power like they have, fascists gotta fascist

But until they did, they talked a good game.

They didn't talk a good game , they did what they always do , lied their asses off.

 

[Coyote]

You seems to protest the questions themselves and see them directed at people instead of policy. I am focused on the issues/policy/mindset and how those so dramatically differ now from the leftist point of view just a few decades ago. The rightwing/conservative point of view has been pretty much what it has consistently always been.

Granted Patriots/Conservatives can be just as insulting as the leftists can and to me it is unfortunate when they do that because it weakens our message. But most Patriots are much better at seeing the big picture and evaluating success and benefit from what they believe and explaining it. And they can usually explain why the rightwing view is the better one for pretty much everybody.

One example: Conservatives can clearly explain why it is wrong for transgender men to be in the women's locker room or public restroom, why it is unfair for transgender men to take women's sporting records, scholarships, and other opportunities.

Leftists once led the charge to break down unfair barriers for women and gain them equal rights in society. So how do they reconcile putting the 'rights' of transgender men ahead of women's rights now? How is it right that transgender men are allowed to take women's sporting records, scholarships, opportunity? How did that happen? Is that not a reasonable question? A question for which there should be an answer?

So far nobody has answered it. I just get whataboutisms, subject changes, personal insults/accusations or dumb statements trying to start a food fight or derail the thread.

Each issue in the OP should have an answer. But are they so uncomfortable for leftists that nobody will address them? I can't understand defending something for which I cannot articulate a defense.

It is difficult to answer a topic in the manner you want when, in many ways it broadly generalizes and simplifies the left. Like or not it IS about people because people no onver seperate people and ideologies.

Flash sums up the topic in a crude but effective way that I don’t see you disagree with: “A big chunk of the Dem's base is composed of misfits, lowlife, anarchists and the mentally ill...”


I will answer your topic but you will get some about today’s right as we’ll because cannot exist without the right and vice versa and BOTH HAVE LOST SIGHT OF THE MIDDLE.

 

[22lcidw]

What exists in China is not communism. It's dictatorial/capitalism/socialism. The fact that the party that runs the country calls itself 'communist' is really an afterthought.

The Communist Party is in control. That is the government.

 

[sparky]

That is the government.

all of which are inherently 'communist' , if off their leash 22.....~S~

 

[wamose]

Democrats have been free falling since Kennedy. JFK would be embarrassed by what his party has become.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Coyote]

How did it happen? Why did it happen? How does it sustain itself and spread? Inquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds should look a bit deeper. Nothing exists in a vacuum and the left and right exist on a spectrum. Both sides would be unregonizable to our grandparents.

The left used to be anti-war.

Now they’re giving Zelensky a blank check with no accountability required and don't seem to care that North Korea, Iran, and China are all saber rattling.

As another pointed out, both sides have been anti-war and pro-war at different times in our history and it often seems more generational than ideological.

You are only looking at one era, the Vietnam war.

In terms of Ukraine, the support comes from both the left and the right.

From the left, I see it as a very human conflict with Russia’s targeting of civilians, taking of children and moving large numbers of Ukrainians into Russia to be “processed”. All crimes against humanity. The left has long had a focus on human rights so that is not different.

The real split is occurring on the right with one faction viewing what Russia is doing in Ukraine as an existential threat to an established world order that has largely managed to maintain peace since WW2 (and I see this also). Ukraine represents a much larger ”proxy” war for which values will dominate the world order. The other faction is shifting from beating the drums to invade Iraq to isolationism.

On Iran, NK, China…what do expect….? I don’t see how that reflects where the left is or is not. It isn’t ignored, if the news is anything to go by. Support for Ukraine was fired up aAFTER Russia invaded.

Now what scares me is our potential reaction to Taiwan. Where is left and right on what to do? China is watching Ukraine play out.

The left used to be anti-FBI and other government law enforcement.

Now they own it and use it against law abiding Americans.

How can I answer this when the second sentance is BS?

The left used to be pro- women.
Now they applaud transgendered men taking women's jobs, sporting records, scholarships, and putting women at higher risk for assault and worse.

Hyperbole much?

The left has gone too far in its support of a small minority and it has split them in terms of a conflict in rights. That I can agree with.

Sports is an issue where majorities of both the right and the left feel transgender women should not compete with biological women.

The bathroom issue, while I understand the concern, is largely unfounded fear mongering. There has been no increase in assaults thus far.

Where the left has changed is in it’s focus on transgender issues to exclusion of other groups it has traditionally supported.

Where I think you are wrong is in the idea this is anti-woman. This is not at the top of the list of issues most women are concerned about. It is a small issue magnified by the right to portray the left as anti-woman.

The left used to be pro-children.
Now they applaud or turn a blind eye to grooming of children via inappropriate curriculum, entertainment, recreation and don't seem to care that American students are far behind their counterparts in most core subjects around the world.

This is rich.

First, BOTH THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT are very concerned about tbe state of our schools, so let’s put that to rest.

Second, what is pro-children?
Advocating for a strong social safetynet.
Paid family leave for new parents.
Keeping families together and opposing utterly cruel policies like the forced family seperation policy we had for a few years.
School lunch programs for kids who are poor.
Affordable daycare.

I am out of time, will address more later.

The left used to be pro-diversity of opinions and freedom of choice.
Now they tell you what opinions you MUST have and how you are required to live.

The left used to be pro-free speech.
Now they say speech is violence, and silence you if you hurt someone’s feelings.

The left used to be American.
Now they are New World Order one world government advocates.

The change has occurred as the left becomes more and more the large majority in government, media, education, entertainment, scientific organizations, big business and has more and more power and control of all.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Thanks for your opinion of the left which comes from your right-wing media bubble...

It is mainly bullshit... Why is the right obsessed with telling us what the Left thinks...

The Left is pretty simple, they point to actions...

The right has put a Supreme court together which values does not reflect the will of the people...
The right supports tax cuts for the rich and very rich.
The right about banning books and even has brought in laws which bans the Bible.
These are actions...

And it is not only the Left that supports the Ukrainians, a large majority of Americans know that Russia is the enemy and know Russian propaganda being parroted when they see it.

All groomed talking points.

 

[Oddball]

What exists in China is not communism. It's dictatorial/capitalism/socialism. The fact that the party that runs the country calls itself 'communist' is really an afterthought.

No true Scottsman fallacy on full display.

 

[Foxfyre]

You oversimplify the complexities of international relations and foreign policy. It is incorrect to assume that all members of the left support every decision made regarding foreign policy. Political stances can evolve based on various factors, including changing geopolitical landscapes and national interests.

You paint the entire left as uniformly hostile towards law enforcement, which is an oversimplification. People on the left may have diverse opinions regarding the role and actions of law enforcement agencies. It is inaccurate to suggest that the left collectively "owns" or controls these agencies. In fact the FBI is a notoriously conservative organization.

You misrepresent the positions of the left on transgender rights and inclusivity. Advocating for transgender rights does not necessarily imply a disregard for women's rights or safety. The issue of gender identity is complex, and different perspectives exist within the left on how to navigate these matters.

You generalize the left's stance on education and children's welfare. The left, like any political ideology, encompasses a range of views. Educational policies and approaches are subject to ongoing debate and often involve various stakeholders from different political backgrounds.

Again, you oversimplify the left's position on diversity and freedom of choice. While there may be instances where certain viewpoints are criticized or challenged, it is inaccurate to claim that the left uniformly dictates what opinions individuals should hold or how they should live.

You present a narrow view of the left's position on free speech. While there are ongoing debates about the boundaries and consequences of speech, characterizing the entire left as opposing free speech is an oversimplification and is outright false. Are there some on the left worthy of criticism? Sure, just as there are on the right. It is important to recognize that different individuals and groups within the left hold diverse perspectives on this issue.

This claim relies on conspiracy theories and lacks substantial evidence. It is not accurate to attribute a singular motive or agenda to an entire political ideology. The left, like any other political group, consists of individuals with a wide range of perspectives and goals.


Nothing but sweeping generalities without foundation. Fail.

Sorry but I read what is posted here at USMB, on Facebook, on Twitter, said by the talking heads on television, what is quoted in the newspapers. And I was specific about issues pushed by the Left. I did not say those were the ONLY issues pushed by the Left on any topic. But you'll have a hard time showing how I was wrong in how the left pushes each and every one. And how each is a reversal of the position of the left in previous recent generations.