What Is American Socialism, Communism, and Marxism: Open Q&A

[francoHFW]

There were amendments to the Constitution to end slavery but Lincoln refused.

He wanted to have a war instead.

He was another Hamiltonian who maintained a friendly, often agreeable relationship with Marx.

That whole theme about ''living document'' was Hamilton's skulduggery.

More like ignoramus southerners were led astray by Mega Rich conservative slave owners... the usual in other words....

 

[francoHFW]

STFU you fucking stupid goober doober. There's no way you're American.

"Universal Health Care" is just another plank of the Cloward-Piven strategy to bring it all crashing down.

Government health care sucks in Cuba and Canada, what say you to that?

Half of Canada waits until they come to the US in the winter to get medical things done.

Okay half is an exaggeration, but a large percentage.

you are so stupid l o l oops, brainwashed functionally stupid politically l o l

 

[Natural Citizen]

More like ignoramus southerners were led astray by Mega Rich conservative slave owners... the usual in other words....

.....

 

[francoHFW]

.....

Another brilliant right wing argument. lol,

 

[Natural Citizen]

Another brilliant right wing argument. lol,

I'm gonna go ahead and just toss you in the hole for the duration of my interest in this thread.

As it is, my power is flickering out from this storm at the moment, so I may lose interest in the entire thread if it goes out for the night and may end up not even looking back at it. Depends on my mood.

For now, however, I find no value in your contribution to any dialogue thus far. Just low-value white noise, really.

I'll let you back out later, though, winger...

 

[Red Front]

Since conservatives and even liberals Etcetera Etcetera from English-speaking countries are terminally brainwashed about socialism and communism, Let's try talking about what happens in the real world in democracies that have communist and socialist parties- every damn time. The Socialists are for fair capitalism with a good safety net and the communists for the state owning all business and industry which means dictatorship and is a total failure.

France Italy and other European countries had communist and socialist parties at the same time, and the socialists always won and the communists disappeared with the Soviet Union and its aid. The US and the UK had socialist parties until World War one and even then they followed that definition. Unfortunately they were against World War One the stupidest war ever, and were banned for it. Eugene Debs look him up he's the American Socialist that was jailed. In France the Socialist leader was assassinated. The UK has always been since the 1600s the most savage capitalist country in the world and they had the English channel so they won. In both battle and Colonialism.

Every country in the modern world is now socialist except for the United States, since you really need health care for all at least to qualify along with democracy. The UK Socialism is on the cheap. And of course they can't call it that because then they would be communists LOL. We have to stop confusing and conflating the two terms. Absolutely ridiculous. And I don't give a damn what the Communists or Nazis or now the new BS GOP have to say about it. Three biggest liars in history.....

This is communism:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10] " Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The USSR wasn't communist, but rather socialist.

The USSR was in a state of perpetual war, due to powerful capitalist-run countries trying to destroy it, not to speak of all of the domestic opposition as well from capitalists and their brainwashed slaves and cronies. The USSR was never truly communist, due to the fact that it had a large state and money. The USSR was a socialist republic:

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS​

The USSR was essentially in a state of war for all of its existence, even being invaded in 1918 by the US, UK, and France shortly after being established in 1917. Add the war with the anti-socialist white armies, a world war that killed 27 million Soviets, and a Cold War that lasted over 40 years, and anyone whose honest, will recognize why socialism supposedly failed in the USSR. It wasn't because of socialism itself or their attempt to establish a communist society and economy, but due to it being a new country, having to face one devastating crisis after another.

Socialism is the process that leads to communism. ​

The defenders of capitalism, constantly use the USSR as a beating stick for socialists, pointing to it as if it somehow proves socialism is inadequate and capitalism isn't. They disingenuously forget to mention all of the aforementioned challenges that the USSR had to confront to survive and pretend that socialism has to replace capitalism in one decisive swoop of its sword to prove itself an effective legitimate economic system.

Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, or in a single victorious action or battle? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the kings and nobles of Europe. Why do you capitalist apologists always demand socialism win the struggle with capitalism immediately if it's a viable mode of production?

Lastly, aren't there any impoverished capitalist-run states? Some of the poorest, failed states in the world have capitalist economies.

• 
  Somalia: Often cited as a textbook example of a failed state, Somalia has faced decades of civil war, famine, and political instability. While it has a market-based economy with many capitalist elements, the lack of a strong central government has led to challenges in economic development.
• Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Despite its vast natural resources, the DRC has faced prolonged periods of conflict and instability.
• Afghanistan: While Afghanistan has a market economy, decades of war and political instability have hindered its development.
• Yemen: Yemen's ongoing civil war and humanitarian crisis have severely impacted its market-based economy.
• Haiti: Despite having a capitalist economy, Haiti has faced political instability, natural disasters, and economic challenges that have hindered its development.
• Central African Republic (CAR): CAR has faced ongoing conflict and political instability, impacting its largely market-based economy.
• South Sudan: The world's youngest nation has faced civil conflict almost since its inception, affecting its capitalist-oriented economy.
• Zimbabwe: While Zimbabwe has a capitalist economy, political instability, corruption, and economic mismanagement have led to significant challenges.
• Libya: Post-Gaddafi Libya has seen political fragmentation and conflict, affecting its oil-based capitalist economy.
• Syria: The ongoing civil war has devastated Syria's previously mixed economy, with plenty of market capitalism.

They have markets and capitalists and they failed. Why not blame capitalism for that? Because it's not convenient for the anti-socialist, capitalist polemicists to think and argue consistently. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Hello everyone

I found the following threads in the politics section:​

1. 
   
   Let’s Call Them What They Are: Communists
   First response anticipated from the leftist dummies on this board: “Oh, this article is from...
2. R
   Marxist, Communism, Socialism and Capitalism
   This is the question. Marxism: What It Is and Comparison to Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism KEY TAKEAWAYS Marxism is...
3. 
   
   What IS National Socialism
   The terms Nazi and Neo-Nazi get thrown around a lot, usually as a shallow smear against people...
4. 
   
   If Socialist Communism Spreads in the United States
   From the City-Data Forum. (Lifetime banned...so I opened up discussion here.) "If Socialist...

Hence, I decided to open this topic in the politics section, because none of the above threads were banned or deleted.

This thread is dedicated to discussing and understanding the concepts of American-born Socialism, Communism, and Marxism (the American democratic version of socialism/communism/Marxism - Socialism with American characteristics), among other related topics.

The purpose of this thread is to provide a platform for open and informed discussion. It is an opportunity for us to learn from each other, dispel misconceptions, and deepen our understanding of these political and economic topics.

I invite all of you, regardless of your current knowledge or beliefs, to ask questions, share insights, and contribute to the conversation. Whether you're a seasoned scholar, a curious observer, or someone who's just starting to explore these topics, your perspective is valuable and welcome here.

Some potential, opening topics to discuss:

Two types of communism. The pre-agrarian/hunter-gatherer, paleolithic, Primitive Communism of our ancestors:

View attachment 811992
View attachment 811993
​

Marxist "High-Communism"/High-Tech Communism :

" a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.[3][4][5] A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10] As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, communism is placed on the left-wing alongside socialism, and communist parties and movements have been described as radical left or far-left.[11][12][note 1]

Variants of communism have been developed throughout history, including anarchist communism, Marxist schools of thought, and religious communism, among others. Communism encompasses a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism, Leninism, and libertarian communism, as well as the political ideologies grouped around those. All of these different ideologies generally share the analysis that the current order of society stems from capitalism, its economic system, and mode of production, that in this system there are two major social classes, that the relationship between these two classes is exploitative, and that this situation can only ultimately be resolved through a social revolution.[21][note 2] The two classes are the proletariat, who make up the majority of the population within society and must sell their labor power to survive, and the bourgeoisie, a small minority that derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production.[23] According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power,[24] and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production.[25][26][27]"

SOURCE: Communism - Wikipedia

View attachment 811996
View attachment 811997

View attachment 811998

View attachment 811999


View attachment 812001

View attachment 812000


View attachment 812002

View attachment 812003



View attachment 812005

View attachment 812007

View attachment 812009








​

Socialism, communism and Marxism are all three equal roads to poverty and misery. Adding American in front doesn’t change the route or the final destination.

American communism doesn’t end in a different place than Chinese or Russian communism. It’s the same thing.

 

[francoHFW]

This is communism:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10] " Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The USSR wasn't communist, but rather socialist.

The USSR was in a state of perpetual war, due to powerful capitalist-run countries trying to destroy it, not to speak of all of the domestic opposition as well from capitalists and their brainwashed slaves and cronies. The USSR was never truly communist, due to the fact that it had a large state and money. The USSR was a socialist republic:

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS​

The USSR was essentially in a state of war for all of its existence, even being invaded in 1918 by the US, UK, and France shortly after being established in 1917. Add the war with the anti-socialist white armies, a world war that killed 27 million Soviets, and a Cold War that lasted over 40 years, and anyone whose honest, will recognize why socialism supposedly failed in the USSR. It wasn't because of socialism itself or their attempt to establish a communist society and economy, but due to it being a new country, having to face one devastating crisis after another.

Socialism is the process that leads to communism. ​

The defenders of capitalism, constantly use the USSR as a beating stick for socialists, pointing to it as if it somehow proves socialism is inadequate and capitalism isn't. They disingenuously forget to mention all of the aforementioned challenges that the USSR had to confront to survive and pretend that socialism has to replace capitalism in one decisive swoop of its sword to prove itself an effective legitimate economic system.

Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, or in a single victorious action or battle? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the kings and nobles of Europe. Why do you capitalist apologists always demand socialism win the struggle with capitalism immediately if it's a viable mode of production?

Lastly, aren't there any impoverished capitalist-run states? Some of the poorest, failed states in the world have capitalist economies.

• 
  Somalia: Often cited as a textbook example of a failed state, Somalia has faced decades of civil war, famine, and political instability. While it has a market-based economy with many capitalist elements, the lack of a strong central government has led to challenges in economic development.
• Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Despite its vast natural resources, the DRC has faced prolonged periods of conflict and instability.
• Afghanistan: While Afghanistan has a market economy, decades of war and political instability have hindered its development.
• Yemen: Yemen's ongoing civil war and humanitarian crisis have severely impacted its market-based economy.
• Haiti: Despite having a capitalist economy, Haiti has faced political instability, natural disasters, and economic challenges that have hindered its development.
• Central African Republic (CAR): CAR has faced ongoing conflict and political instability, impacting its largely market-based economy.
• South Sudan: The world's youngest nation has faced civil conflict almost since its inception, affecting its capitalist-oriented economy.
• Zimbabwe: While Zimbabwe has a capitalist economy, political instability, corruption, and economic mismanagement have led to significant challenges.
• Libya: Post-Gaddafi Libya has seen political fragmentation and conflict, affecting its oil-based capitalist economy.
• Syria: The ongoing civil war has devastated Syria's previously mixed economy, with plenty of market capitalism.

They have markets and capitalists and they failed. Why not blame capitalism for that? Because it's not convenient for the anti-socialist, capitalist polemicists to think and argue consistently. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

BS. I only care about democracies. Socialists won in France Italy Spain Norway Germany Etcetera Etcetera and it means fair capitalism always Democratic with a good safety net. The UK is savage capitalist totally and so is the United States. UK does socialism on the cheap and the United States very cheap, don't have health care yet. " We are all socialists now!"- President of Finland when Obamacare passed- he didn't realize quite how FOS and obstructionist the GOP is.

 

[The Duke]

you are so stupid l o l oops, brainwashed functionally stupid politically l o l

 

[The Duke]

BS. I only care about democracies. Socialists won in France Italy Spain Norway Germany Etcetera Etcetera and it means fair capitalism always Democratic with a good safety net. The UK is savage capitalist totally and so is the United States. UK does socialism on the cheap and the United States very cheap, don't have health care yet. " We are all socialists now!"- President of Finland when Obamacare passed- he didn't realize quite how FOS and obstructionist the GOP is.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

This is communism:

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[10] " Source:

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The USSR wasn't communist, but rather socialist.

The USSR was in a state of perpetual war, due to powerful capitalist-run countries trying to destroy it, not to speak of all of the domestic opposition as well from capitalists and their brainwashed slaves and cronies. The USSR was never truly communist, due to the fact that it had a large state and money. The USSR was a socialist republic:

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS​

The USSR was essentially in a state of war for all of its existence, even being invaded in 1918 by the US, UK, and France shortly after being established in 1917. Add the war with the anti-socialist white armies, a world war that killed 27 million Soviets, and a Cold War that lasted over 40 years, and anyone whose honest, will recognize why socialism supposedly failed in the USSR. It wasn't because of socialism itself or their attempt to establish a communist society and economy, but due to it being a new country, having to face one devastating crisis after another.

Socialism is the process that leads to communism. ​

The defenders of capitalism, constantly use the USSR as a beating stick for socialists, pointing to it as if it somehow proves socialism is inadequate and capitalism isn't. They disingenuously forget to mention all of the aforementioned challenges that the USSR had to confront to survive and pretend that socialism has to replace capitalism in one decisive swoop of its sword to prove itself an effective legitimate economic system.

Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism overnight, or in a single victorious action or battle? No. It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the kings and nobles of Europe. Why do you capitalist apologists always demand socialism win the struggle with capitalism immediately if it's a viable mode of production?

Lastly, aren't there any impoverished capitalist-run states? Some of the poorest, failed states in the world have capitalist economies.

• 
  Somalia: Often cited as a textbook example of a failed state, Somalia has faced decades of civil war, famine, and political instability. While it has a market-based economy with many capitalist elements, the lack of a strong central government has led to challenges in economic development.
• Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Despite its vast natural resources, the DRC has faced prolonged periods of conflict and instability.
• Afghanistan: While Afghanistan has a market economy, decades of war and political instability have hindered its development.
• Yemen: Yemen's ongoing civil war and humanitarian crisis have severely impacted its market-based economy.
• Haiti: Despite having a capitalist economy, Haiti has faced political instability, natural disasters, and economic challenges that have hindered its development.
• Central African Republic (CAR): CAR has faced ongoing conflict and political instability, impacting its largely market-based economy.
• South Sudan: The world's youngest nation has faced civil conflict almost since its inception, affecting its capitalist-oriented economy.
• Zimbabwe: While Zimbabwe has a capitalist economy, political instability, corruption, and economic mismanagement have led to significant challenges.
• Libya: Post-Gaddafi Libya has seen political fragmentation and conflict, affecting its oil-based capitalist economy.
• Syria: The ongoing civil war has devastated Syria's previously mixed economy, with plenty of market capitalism.

They have markets and capitalists and they failed. Why not blame capitalism for that? Because it's not convenient for the anti-socialist, capitalist polemicists to think and argue consistently. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

All of those places have warlords promising the idiots a socialist paradise if they give them all the power and money.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

BS. I only care about democracies. Socialists won in France Italy Spain Norway Germany Etcetera Etcetera and it means fair capitalism always Democratic with a good safety net. The UK is savage capitalist totally and so is the United States. UK does socialism on the cheap and the United States very cheap, don't have health care yet. " We are all socialists now!"- President of Finland when Obamacare passed- he didn't realize quite how FOS and obstructionist the GOP is.

So poverty isn’t really poverty if you voted for it. I think California fits this mold.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism, communism and Marxism are all three equal roads to poverty and misery. Adding American in front doesn’t change the route or the final destination.

American communism doesn’t end in a different place than Chinese or Russian communism. It’s the same thing.

Yeah thanks for the stupid cliches from the UK 80 years ago. Try looking at Socialist parties and actual socialists in Europe and you will see it is all about fair capitalism and a good safety net and always democracy. You people are totally baffled with **** Savage capitalist UK -USA right wing propaganda. communism is only in North Korea China and Vietnam and Cuba and is pure crap never Democratic just forget about communism. Nobody takes it seriously anymore even the Communists they all want to be capitalists.

 

[francoHFW]

All of those places have warlords promising the idiots a socialist paradise if they give them all the power and money.

communism is a dictatorship, socialism is a democracy and the difference is everything, Super Dupe... The brainwash is so thick UK-USA on this it's ridiculous....

 

[DBA]

BS. I only care about democracies. Socialists won in France Italy Spain Norway Germany Etcetera Etcetera and it means fair capitalism always Democratic with a good safety net. The UK is savage capitalist totally and so is the United States. UK does socialism on the cheap and the United States very cheap, don't have health care yet. " We are all socialists now!"- President of Finland when Obamacare passed- he didn't realize quite how FOS and obstructionist the GOP is.

It truly frightens me that such ignorant people like yourself can vote.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Yeah thanks for the stupid cliches from the UK 80 years ago. Try looking at Socialist parties and actual socialists in Europe and you will see it is all about fair capitalism and a good safety net and always democracy. You people are totally baffled with **** Savage capitalist UK -USA right wing propaganda. communism is only in North Korea China and Vietnam and Cuba and is pure crap never Democratic just forget about communism. Nobody takes it seriously anymore even the Communists they all want to be capitalists.

If Europe is your model sales point you’re fucked.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

communism is a dictatorship, socialism is a democracy and the difference is everything, Super Dupe... The brainwash is so thick UK-USA on this it's ridiculous....

Venezuela voted themselves right into poverty and misery. That wasn’t a dictatorship to begin with. They voted for it. How did that work out for them?

 

[Red Front]

There were amendments to the Constitution to end slavery but Lincoln refused.

He wanted to have a war instead.

He was another Hamiltonian who maintained a friendly, often agreeable relationship with Marx.

That whole theme about ''living document'' was Hamilton's skulduggery.

• 
  Amendments to End Slavery: Prior to the Civil War, there were no amendments proposed to the Constitution that would have ended slavery. The 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, was passed by Congress in January 1865 and ratified by the states later that year, after the Civil War had effectively ended.
• Lincoln's Desire for War: It's a gross oversimplification to say that Lincoln "wanted to have a war." Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union. While he personally opposed slavery and expressed his desire to see it end, he initially approached the issue cautiously to avoid alienating the border states that still practiced slavery but hadn't seceded. The outbreak of the Civil War was a result of deep-seated tensions between the North and South, particularly over the issue of slavery, but it's misleading to suggest that Lincoln desired or instigated the war.
• Lincoln's Relationship with Marx: While Karl Marx did write a letter to Lincoln congratulating him on his re-election in 1864, there's no evidence to suggest that the two had a "friendly, often agreeable relationship." They never met, and their correspondence was limited. Furthermore, Marx's views on the American Civil War were rooted in his belief that the conflict was a struggle against the slaveholding bourgeoisie, not necessarily an endorsement of Lincoln's policies.
• Hamilton and the "Living Document": The idea of the Constitution as a "living document" is a modern interpretation suggesting that the Constitution's meaning can evolve and adapt over time. While Alexander Hamilton was an advocate for a strong federal government and a broad interpretation of the Constitution, it's anachronistic to attribute the "living document" philosophy directly to him. Moreover, the term "skulduggery" implies deceit or underhanded behavior, which is a subjective and contentious way to describe Hamilton's constitutional interpretation.

PS: It's essential to approach the U.S. Constitution with a nuanced understanding. Do we regard it as an infallible divine scripture, and its drafters as akin to "Biblical Prophets"? The framers of the Constitution were, in many cases, wealthy landowners, and several were slaveholders. Their primary concern, understandably, was to protect their assets and way of life. While the Constitution laid the groundwork for the democratic principles we hold dear today, its original intent was not purely democratic. It was designed to establish a republic that would safeguard the interests of its framers, which often diverged from the broader public's interests.

At its inception, the Constitution did not grant voting rights to all citizens, but rather to a select group, primarily white male property owners. This exclusionary approach was reflective of the framers' apprehensions about direct democracy, which they feared could jeopardize their socioeconomic status. In essence, while the Constitution has evolved to become more inclusive over time, its original design was more about protecting the privileges of the elite than championing the rights of the masses.

 

[Leo123]

The American 'green' movement is a good example of socialism and budding communism in the U.S. because it seeks to take private property for the 'greater good' of something called 'climate change.' Of course a strong central government is needed to mandate this taking before it is turned over to 'The Collective' which will never happen.

 

[Red Front]

Socialism, communism and Marxism are all three equal roads to poverty and misery. Adding American in front doesn’t change the route or the final destination.

American communism doesn’t end in a different place than Chinese or Russian communism. It’s the same thing.

How does it ensure poverty and misery? Without socialism, capitalism would crumble. Especially now with the advent of advanced automation and artificial intelligence. Socialism is the clear successor of capitalism. Your grandchildren are going to be socialists, guaranteed.