The Hidden Threat of Communism in America

[Senter]

Are you aware of the “Red Terror” and Lenin’s part in it. I would never want to put my nation through anything like that but fortunately that will never happen as long as we have the right to bear arms.

WTF does that have to do with the USA and my views? When did I advocate mechanically following Lenin?????

 

[Senter]

Hey - fuck you.

Put me on ignore, you dumb fucking asshole.

Happy to oblige, fucking high school dropout ignoramus.

 

[Senter]

Somebody said earlier that they had asked you righties repeatedly to define socialism and communism and none of you could, and none of you would try. So I have asked for the same definitions and as he said, none of you could or would. Yet you go on spewing lies and bullshit about it. If you don't know what they are, then stop pretending to judge them! It just makes you look like idiots.

It was this kind of intransigent stupidity that caused me to stay away for a while. Now I see it again so now I know it wasn't me. It is actually genuine stupidity enhanced with brainwashing.

 

[dblack]

But WHAT is "BS"? It is your assessment that is BS. You like to twist things. YOUR ASSESSMENT IS BS. YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YO TALK ABOUT SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM. YOU'RE IN RW FANTASY LAND!

There, is that clear enough?


So IOW you have nothing. You know of nothing relating to those ten points. You're just spewing more BS. So you dodge and avoid debate and discussion. You just want to throw out BS and not have it questioned.

Got it.

Alrighty then!

 

[dblack]

Do YOUR homework! "Democratic socialism" is capitalism "softened" with socially-beneficial policies and programs. Look into it and learn something.

I did! And right away I learned that you're full of shit!

Turns out democratic socialism is still socialism. But it's socialism that's democratic. That's it. It's not complicated.
Again, let's go to the source:

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

www.dsausa.org

About Us - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly democratic socialist presence in American communities and politics. At the root of our socialism...

www.dsausa.org

They're quite proud of the fact that they want to replace capitalism with socialism.

But honestly, what I find more disturbing is their infatuation with democracy: "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end."
Also: "We are activists committed to democracy as not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society."
And then: "Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically"

That sounds to me like a world where every single fucking thing is subject to majority rule. Call it whatever you want, but it sounds insane to me.

 

[Senter]

I did! And right away I learned that you're full of shit!

Turns out democratic socialism is still socialism. But it's socialism that's democratic. That's it. It's not complicated.

The Nordic countries are said to be examples of democratic socialism, right? Ask any citizen of any Nordic country whether their country is socialist or capitalist. I have. They are nearly outraged at the thought of being a socialist country as they tell that they are capitalist.

OTOH, the definitions of all such things are in flux. A few months ago Wikipedia defined democratic socialism as a form of capitalism with socially-beneficial programs. That Wikipedia definition has changed. But now they add "Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who were opposed to the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century."

IOW they say that your wish to lump together Lenin, Marx, USSR, and China with democratic socialism, and that the prediction that democratic socialism will lead to what we saw in Russia and China is wrong.

Again, let's go to the source:

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

www.dsausa.org

About Us - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the United States. DSA’s members are building progressive movements for social change while establishing an openly democratic socialist presence in American communities and politics. At the root of our socialism...

www.dsausa.org

They're quite proud of the fact that they want to replace capitalism with socialism.

But honestly, what I find more disturbing is their infatuation with democracy: "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end."
Also: "We are activists committed to democracy as not simply one of our political values but our means of restructuring society."
And then: "Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically"

That sounds to me like a world where every single fucking thing is subject to majority rule. Call it whatever you want, but it sounds insane to me.

So you are opposed to democracy??????????? WTF???? Ever hear of Robert's Rules of Order? That his how DSA runs their meetings.

And it still looks like you're clueless as to what socialism and communism would be, how they are defined, and how communism would happen.

 

[scruffy]

Happy to oblige, fucking high school dropout ignoramus.

You're just mad I called you out on your bullshit.

"No such thing as Marxist training", indeed.

How totally fucking ignorant is that?

Unlike you apparently, I've actually been to college. That's why I know.

And I have college age kids. That's another reason I know.

I have no respect for people who try to peddle bullshit as if it were the truth. I'll call your sorry ass out on it EVERY TIME, and I don't care whether you like it or not

The world needs more truth.

I'm here to help

 

[Batcat]

WTF does that have to do with the USA and my views? When did I advocate mechanically following Lenin?????

It’s history. History repeats itself.

You may believe that given the chance you could make Marxist socialism work. A number of other people have tried, unfortunately it always fails and fails big time.

Consequently I have no interest in living in a Marxist socialist worker’s paradise.

I prefer freedom and living in a nation that gives me the right to bear arms. The fact that there are over 393 million firearms in civilian hands insures that a future tyrant will find it difficult to massacre citizens as easily as.Lenin and Stalin did in Russia.

I will be 76 years old this month. I retired when just before I turned 60 and haven’t worked a day since. I have no debt and I don’t live on a budget. This nation and its combination of capitalism and soft socialism has worked well for me.

Don't celebrate Karl Marx. His Communism has a death count in the millions.

It's Karl Marx's 200th birthday, but there's nothing to celebrate. His dream of a utopia led to millions of deaths at the hands of tyrants.

www.usatoday.com

Karl Marx, and tributes are arising out around the globe. In a New York Times tribute headlined, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!” philosophy professor Jason Barker declared that “educated liberal opinion is today more or less unanimous in its agreement (with) Marx’s basic thesis” on the flaws of capitalism. But this is true only if “educated liberal opinion” simply does not care about tyranny.

But Marxism in practice didn’t work out so well. Communist regimes produced the greatest ideological carnage in human history, killing more than a hundred million people in the last century. While some apologists claim it is unfair to Marx to blame him, the seeds of tyranny were there from the start.

***snip***

Marxist regimes felt entitled to inflict unlimited delusions on their victims — for the good of the people, or at least proletariats. East Germans were told the Berlin Wall existed to keep fascists out — even though all the killings by border guards involved East Germans heading West. Marxism promised a utopia, and that unsecured pledge sufficed to treat subjects like serfs bound to endlessly submit and obey. Anyone who tried to escape was treated as if they were stealing government property.

Communism is still often portrayed as morally superior to capitalism because it banishes greedy corporations poisoning people for profit. But East Bloc regimes became a vast graveyard for Mother Nature. Pollution was pervasive largely due to the deification of economic plans. As long as the factories roared and steel output rose, it didn’t matter if people and everything else were perishing.

***snip***

Marx never intended for his doctrines to spur perpetual dread in hundreds of millions of victims. But it was criminally naive to expect happy results from any system that bestowed boundless power on rulers. On Marx’s birthday, never forget that a philosophy that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation.

 

[dudmuck]

The Nordic countries are said to be examples of democratic socialism, right? Ask any citizen of any Nordic country whether their country is socialist or capitalist. I have. They are nearly outraged at the thought of being a socialist country as they tell that they are capitalist.

OTOH, the definitions of all such things are in flux. A few months ago Wikipedia defined democratic socialism as a form of capitalism with socially-beneficial programs. That Wikipedia definition has changed. But now they add "Democratic socialism was popularized by socialists who were opposed to the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century."

IOW they say that your wish to lump together Lenin, Marx, USSR, and China with democratic socialism, and that the prediction that democratic socialism will lead to what we saw in Russia and China is wrong.



So you are opposed to democracy??????????? WTF???? Ever hear of Robert's Rules of Order? That his how DSA runs their meetings.

And it still looks like you're clueless as to what socialism and communism would be, how they are defined, and how communism would happen.

Roberts rules of order is how everybody runs their meetings.
If not, then meetings are just an unorganized and unproductive mess.

 

[dblack]

The Nordic countries are said to be examples of democratic socialism, right? Ask any citizen of any Nordic country whether their country is socialist or capitalist. I have. They are nearly outraged at the thought of being a socialist country as they tell that they are capitalist.

OTOH, the definitions of all such things are in flux.

Of course. Its a shell game. If you don't define something, you're never held accountable for it. That's the goal, right?

A few months ago Wikipedia defined democratic socialism as a form of capitalism with socially-beneficial programs. That Wikipedia definition has changed.

Well, I'll have to take your word on that (ie I don't necessarily believe you).

This is why I try to stick to the statements of people who call themselves socialists. Seems like they should know.

... your wish to lump together Lenin, Marx, USSR, and China with democratic socialism

That's not my wish. That's another strawman.

So you are opposed to democracy??????????? WTF????

I'm opposed to all forms of unnecessary state coercion. These people want government running every goddamned thing. You, and other idiots, might think that's ok "because democracy", but it's not ok. It's the majority forcing it's will on everyone else. Such coercive force should only be used when it's absolutely necessary, when it's vital for us all to commit to one decision. Otherwise, people should be left to decide for themselves how to live their lives.

And it still looks like you're clueless as to what socialism and communism would be, how they are defined, and how communism would happen.

No, I'm pretty clear on it, despite your attempts to obfuscate.

And I'm still wondering why - why is it so important for you to engage in all this spin over socialism? What are you selling?

 

[Senter]

It’s history. History repeats itself.

That's little more than a cliche'.

You may believe that given the chance you could make Marxist socialism work. A number of other people have tried, unfortunately it always fails and fails big time.

The causes of its failure are known and they can now be avoided. Consequently, no one but a few, rare, nutjobs want to adhere rigidly to Marx because Marx didn't detail-out a couple of things. He died before he could cover it all. First, he didn't lay out details of the role, methodology, and limitations of the socialist state. So that was one place earlier Marxists made mistakes. And secondly, he didn't adequately cover the organization of labor and how to democratically keep power in the hands of the people. Hence, mistakes were made in those areas.

Capitalism took 200-300 years to go from the first privately-owned business with employees, to the first nation with an economy based on private ownership of business and the employer-employee relationship. Socialism must and will get the same chance.

Consequently I have no interest in living in a Marxist socialist worker’s paradise.

I prefer freedom and living in a nation that gives me the right to bear arms. The fact that there are over 393 million firearms in civilian hands insures that a future tyrant will find it difficult to massacre citizens as easily as.Lenin and Stalin did in Russia.

The number of mass shootings goes up with the number of guns in society.

In addition, the acquisition of guns by civilians for use as a political deterrence has never been a problem. Arms, many of which are far more effective against governments gone rogue, get supplied by other countries and from other sources. "If you build it they will come".

I will be 76 years old this month. I retired when just before I turned 60 and haven’t worked a day since. I have no debt and I don’t live on a budget. This nation and its combination of capitalism and soft socialism has worked well for me.

Wow, I could have written that, except I'm turning 75 this month. But the "good old days" of the 50s, 60s, and 70s are not coming back because the changes are not random or chance. The economy continues to change as it proceeds in maturing. Today, capitalism is in crisis, not because of some mistake that can be fixed but because of the nature of capitalism as it advances. There's no going back. History can only go forward and that is a direction which, to save and satisfy the rich and powerful, must evolve into an authoritarian and fascist state under which more people will need to suffer greatly for the good of the rich and powerful.

We already have an economy in which half the population owns 98.7% of the wealth, and the other half owns the remaining 1.3%.

Marx never intended for his doctrines to spur perpetual dread in hundreds of millions of victims. But it was criminally naive to expect happy results from any system that bestowed boundless power on rulers. On Marx’s birthday, never forget that a philosophy that begins by idealizing government will end by idealizing subjugation.

Marx didn't describe or recommend any system, benevolent or brutal. As I said, that is something he never covered. The attempt to implement his ideas did not require nor indicate any "boundless power for rulers". What the right doesn't understand is that the "boundless power" was the result of flawed strategies that led to a loss of control, actually. There is no "cause-effect" connection between Marxism and the failures of past attempts to establish a socialist system or brutality.

 

[Senter]

But Marxism in practice didn’t work out so well. Communist regimes produced the greatest ideological carnage in human history, killing more than a hundred million people in the last century. While some apologists claim it is unfair to Marx to blame him, the seeds of tyranny were there from the start.

Capitalism has killed more, but you want to overlook those cases it seems.

Which has killed more people: communism or capitalism?

Aside from the fact that no one was let in peace so they could implement communism and all the countries which tried to go for communism were forced to stay in a State Capitalist + Social Welfare format, keep militarizing and stay in a state of pending war to defend themselves, one could easily...

ozgurzeren.com

Tallying Capitalism’s Death Toll

Death by capitalism

I have noted a tendency when Communism or Socialism is discussed to immediately bring up the millions of lives lost under various regimes. Can we talk about death by capitalism?

www.dailykos.com

 

[Senter]

I'm opposed to all forms of unnecessary state coercion. These people want government running every goddamned thing. You, and other idiots, might think that's ok "because democracy", but it's not ok. It's the majority forcing it's will on everyone else. Such coercive force should only be used when it's absolutely necessary, when it's vital for us all to commit to one decision. Otherwise, people should be left to decide for themselves how to live their lives.

Anarchism? See, you don't understand socialism. Government running things is not socialism. It's what happened in Russia and China, and that is state capitalism of one form or another. Socialism would end an overbearing state and would end all state power eventually. But that doesn't happen when it is taken astray by forces trying to reinstate capitalism.

And if you oppose democracy because it's "the majority forcing its will on everyone else", that means you prefer minority rule - the minority forcing its will on everyone else. That is despotic, authoritarian dictatorship.

No, I'm pretty clear on it, despite your attempts to obfuscate.

No, you don't even seem to distinguish communist ideology from a communist socio-economic system. And you don't understand that communist society cannot be imposed on a nation.

And I'm still wondering why - why is it so important for you to engage in all this spin over socialism? What are you selling?

Hope. Why are YOU selling gun ownership and authoritarian one-party dictatorship?

 

[Orangecat]

Let's go to the source:



Is there any doubt that today's "left", and sadly much of the "right", is headed down this road?

 

[berg80]

we have “a certain herd immunity to Nazism and fascism.” But not to communism.

An immunity that does not extend to Trumpleton's who clearly have an affinity for authoritarians.

 

[dblack]

Anarchism?

What? No, I didn't say anything about anarchism.

See, you don't understand socialism.

Of course.

Here's the deal. I don't give a shit how you label it. These jokers want to see everything run democratically. The economy, society, everything. I want no such thing.

And if you oppose democracy because it's "the majority forcing its will on everyone else", that means you prefer minority rule

No, it doesn't. Another strawman. Is that all you have?

No, you don't even seem to distinguish communist ideology from a communist socio-economic system.

Indeed. I dont give a shit about the various "varieties" of socialism.

And you don't understand that communist society cannot be imposed on a nation.

Another strawman. So the fuck what? So what if it can't be imposed on a nation? I never claimed it could be. Are you sure you're not mixing me up with someone else?

Why are YOU selling gun ownership and authoritarian one-party dictatorship?

I'm doing no such thing, jackass.

And still I'm wondering why - why is it so important for you to engage in all this spin over socialism? What are you selling?

On the one hand, you seem desperate to deny that there's any socialism, or efforts to promote socialism, in the US, but then you are determined to defend socialism from criticism. What's your angle? Is socialism a good thing, that we should embrace? Or something we should avoid?

 

[Senter]

View attachment 653484

OH HORRORS!!! From 1988 to the present voters have been urged to support the Democratic Party!!!!! OH HORRORS!!!

And from 1950 to present voters have been urged to support the Republican Party. And from 2016 to present the Republican Party has abandoned tradition, the Constitution, and has become a rogue cult pushing for one-party authoritarian dictatorship.

What you don't know, apparently, is that Gus Hall was found to be an FBI plant who infiltrated and took CPUSA to a harmless, weak, dead end for the few who still hold an ignorant, uninformed affinity for a communist party to keep the country safe from them.

So, support for the Democratic Party? Of course! Where else could CPUSA go?

 

[Senter]

What? No, I didn't say anything about anarchism.

WTF else could it be if you oppose democracy, rule by the majority, and say "otherwise, people should be left to decide for themselves how to live their lives." ???? There's only minority dictatorship and anarchism left. So which is your preference?

See, you don't understand socialism. Government running things is not socialism. It's what happened in Russia and China, and that is state capitalism of one form or another. Socialism would end an overbearing state and would end all state power eventually. But that doesn't happen when it is taken astray by forces trying to reinstate capitalism.

And if you oppose democracy because it's "the majority forcing its will on everyone else", that means you prefer minority rule - the minority forcing its will on everyone else. That is despotic, authoritarian dictatorship.


No, you don't even seem to distinguish communist ideology from a communist socio-economic system. And you don't understand that communist society cannot be imposed on a nation.

I think you screwed up your post.

 

[Orangecat]

OH HORRORS!!! From 1988 to the present voters have been urged to support the Democratic Party!!!!! OH HORRORS!!!

Knowledge isn't a horror, you hysterical dingbat, it's just an indication of which major US party best aligns with the goals of socialists/communists/marxists.

 

[dblack]

WTF else could it be if you oppose democracy, rule by the majority, and say "otherwise, people should be left to decide for themselves how to live their lives." ???? There's only minority dictatorship and anarchism left. So which is your preference?

Ahh... so it's a reading comprehension problem. Maybe read the whole post next time? Here, try again: "Such coercive force should only be used when it's absolutely necessary, when it's vital for us all to commit to one decision. Otherwise, people should be left to decide for themselves how to live their lives."