When exactly does the Democrats' socialism kick in?

[SeaMajor7]

Hector12, I'm going through your capitalist-imperialist claptrap, point by point.

First, you claim that Lenin never worked in a factory a day in his life, which somehow disqualifies him from representing the proletariat. This is a weak ad hominem attack. Lenin's role was not to be a factory worker but to be an intellectual and revolutionary leader. His deep understanding of Marxist theory, his strategic brilliance, and his leadership skills were far more crucial to the proletarian revolution than working on an assembly line. Lenin's entire life was dedicated to studying, organizing, and leading the working class. He didn't need to work in a factory to understand the exploitation workers faced under capitalist employment (i.e. "exploiment", a word I just made up expressing the exploitation of capitalist employment); he spent years advocating for their cause and ultimately led a revolution that changed the course of history.

And let's not forget the hypocrisy in your ad hominem attack against Lenin, being that Donald Trump and his children have never worked in a factory, yet claim to champion the interests of working-class America. It's absurd to disqualify Lenin on such grounds while giving a pass to capitalist leaders who do the exact same shit.

Regarding the Kronstadt Rebellion, it's often misrepresented by critics of the Bolsheviks. The rebellion happened during an incredibly tough time for the Soviet state. They were dealing with external threats, a civil war, and economic collapse. While the sailors of Kronstadt had legitimate grievances, their rebellion threatened to destabilize the Soviet government at a critical moment. The rebellion included anarchists and anti-Bolshevik elements, which made the situation even more complicated. The Bolsheviks saw the rebellion as a counter-revolutionary threat, supported by White forces (i.e. The pro-Tsarist, capitalist armies) and the international capitalist powers that had invaded Soviet Russia, namely the US, UK, France, and ten other countries.

Suppressing it was seen as necessary to preserve the revolution. This was a difficult decision, but in any revolutionary process, tough decisions are inevitable. The priority was to protect the revolution from internal and external enemies, even if it meant making unpopular choices.

Your point about Stalin executing his military high command because the Gestapo convinced him of a plot is a mix of fact and speculation. Yes, Stalin did conduct purges of the military leadership in the late 1930s, and yes, it temporarily weakened the Soviet military. However, the idea that the Gestapo manipulated Stalin is speculative at best. The purges were part of a broader campaign to eliminate perceived enemies of the state, and while they did have damaging effects, the Soviet Union's eventual victory in World War II shows that the Red Army was able to rebuild and effectively respond to the German invasion.

Despite the initial setbacks caused by the purges, the Soviet Union adapted and successfully defended itself against the Third Reich, ultimately triumphing and playing a crucial role in the Allied victory.

As for your claim that communist oppression caused many Soviet citizens to initially welcome the Germans as liberators, you're oversimplifying a very complex situation. Yes, some Soviet citizens initially welcomed the Germans, but this was often out of desperation during the hardships of war, not because they supported Hitler.

The widespread Soviet partisan resistance against the German invaders is evidence that the majority of Soviet citizens opposed the occupiers. The Soviet Union's ability to mobilize its population in the fight against Hitler's Germany, despite the initial hardships, reflects the deep-rooted commitment to defending its homeland and the socialist state. Western narratives often exaggerate the extent of collaboration in the Soviet Union to discredit communism, but the reality is that Soviet citizens played a crucial role in the defeat of Germany. The war was essentially one between National Socialists because in many ways Stalin was a type of Socialist Nationalist, similar to Hitler, minus the racism. Stalin was a "NazBol".

Lastly, you claim that the Soviet Union was invited to join the Marshall Plan but refused. This is another oversimplification being that the requirements were for the USSR to essentially open itself to American companies and markets. Nice try, but no, we'll remain socialists.

Despite the challenges, the Soviet Union successfully rebuilt its economy after World War II without Marshall Plan aid. By 1970, it had become the second-largest economy in the world, demonstrating its capacity for self-sufficiency and the effectiveness of its socialist economic policies.

So, while you're quick to throw out these criticisms, it's clear that your understanding of Soviet history is shaped by a narrative that oversimplifies and distorts the complexities of that period. The Soviet Union, despite its flaws, achieved significant successes, especially in rebuilding after World War II, advancing in science and technology, and defending itself against its mortal enemies. Reducing these complex historical events to simplistic criticisms only serves to ignore the broader context and the achievements of the Soviet state. Nice try, but you failed again. Go read a book.

Swim to CUBA for your communist paradise, idiot.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Swim to CUBA for your communist paradise, idiot.

Lift the sanctions, and I'll go there on vacation and come back to my country. America is going to be socialist soon, and you can't do anything about that. If anyone should leave, it's you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

On to page to without a demonstrative example of the democrats march towards socialism. I am starting to think the right wingers just use buzzwords that sound scary which they dont understand. One of my favorite debates with a close but low information buddy:

Him: I am not voting for those Marxists.
Me: Do you even know what a Marxist is?
Him: No. But it doesn't sound good!

Socialism is just for corporations.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Lift the sanctions, and I'll go there on vacation and come back to my country. America is going to be socialist soon, and you can't do anything about that. If anyone should leave, it's you.

One thing you wide-eyed neo-Marxists always forget is that every Marxist Leninist revolution that happened in the 20th century REQUIRED MASS-MURDER to come to be.
Get busy, Trotsky, but watch out for the because there's going to be some other idiot that thinks he's more Marxist than you....

 

[j-mac]

So you want to get rid of public roads as they are inefficient...

Just to refute your next comment:

A Public Road paid for by tax payers is "Government monopolization of an essential service'

Thanks for telling your views and it explains why ye voted against the infrastructure act..

Inside the MAGA head right now the computer chip is going
Public Road = Socialism,
Socialism = BAD,
Public Road = BAD
This doesn't compute

Um no….public roads are in the constitution. Try again.

 

[SeaMajor7]

See? The Marxist Leninist zombie ASSHOLES need violence to get their way, because their ideas are completely STUPID and normal freedom loving people don't want anything to do with them.

 

[TruthNotBS]

One thing you wide-eyed neo-Marxists always forget is that every Marxist Leninist revolution that happened in the 20th century REQUIRED MASS-MURDER to come to be.
Get busy, Trotsky, but watch out for the because there's going to be some other idiot that thinks he's more Marxist than you....

It didn't require mass-murder, or any murder, you're confused. Capitalist imperialism is much worse.

 

[SeaMajor7]

It didn't require mass-murder, or any murder, you're confused. Capitalist imperialism is much worse.

Know you history, dummy.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I can find out where you live and where you work very quickly, *****.

Why is it permitted on this board to threaten posters with violence?????

 

[TruthNotBS]

Know you history, dummy.

 

[SeaMajor7]

View attachment 997931​

Get busy, Trotsky.
You've got some MASS-MURDER to get to, but beware the

 

[Hector12]

Hector12, I'm going through your capitalist-imperialist claptrap, point by point.

First, you claim that Lenin never worked in a factory a day in his life, which somehow disqualifies him from representing the proletariat. This is a weak ad hominem attack. Lenin's role was not to be a factory worker but to be an intellectual and revolutionary leader. His deep understanding of Marxist theory, his strategic brilliance, and his leadership skills were far more crucial to the proletarian revolution than working on an assembly line. Lenin's entire life was dedicated to studying, organizing, and leading the working class. He didn't need to work in a factory to understand the exploitation workers faced under capitalist employment (i.e. "exploiment", a word I just made up expressing the exploitation of capitalist employment); he spent years advocating for their cause and ultimately led a revolution that changed the course of history.

And let's not forget the hypocrisy in your ad hominem attack against Lenin, being that Donald Trump and his children have never worked in a factory, yet claim to champion the interests of working-class America. It's absurd to disqualify Lenin on such grounds while giving a pass to capitalist leaders who do the exact same shit.

Regarding the Kronstadt Rebellion, it's often misrepresented by critics of the Bolsheviks. The rebellion happened during an incredibly tough time for the Soviet state. They were dealing with external threats, a civil war, and economic collapse. While the sailors of Kronstadt had legitimate grievances, their rebellion threatened to destabilize the Soviet government at a critical moment. The rebellion included anarchists and anti-Bolshevik elements, which made the situation even more complicated. The Bolsheviks saw the rebellion as a counter-revolutionary threat, supported by White forces (i.e. The pro-Tsarist, capitalist armies) and the international capitalist powers that had invaded Soviet Russia, namely the US, UK, France, and ten other countries.

Suppressing it was seen as necessary to preserve the revolution. This was a difficult decision, but in any revolutionary process, tough decisions are inevitable. The priority was to protect the revolution from internal and external enemies, even if it meant making unpopular choices.

Your point about Stalin executing his military high command because the Gestapo convinced him of a plot is a mix of fact and speculation. Yes, Stalin did conduct purges of the military leadership in the late 1930s, and yes, it temporarily weakened the Soviet military. However, the idea that the Gestapo manipulated Stalin is speculative at best. The purges were part of a broader campaign to eliminate perceived enemies of the state, and while they did have damaging effects, the Soviet Union's eventual victory in World War II shows that the Red Army was able to rebuild and effectively respond to the German invasion.

Despite the initial setbacks caused by the purges, the Soviet Union adapted and successfully defended itself against the Third Reich, ultimately triumphing and playing a crucial role in the Allied victory.

As for your claim that communist oppression caused many Soviet citizens to initially welcome the Germans as liberators, you're oversimplifying a very complex situation. Yes, some Soviet citizens initially welcomed the Germans, but this was often out of desperation during the hardships of war, not because they supported Hitler.

The widespread Soviet partisan resistance against the German invaders is evidence that the majority of Soviet citizens opposed the occupiers. The Soviet Union's ability to mobilize its population in the fight against Hitler's Germany, despite the initial hardships, reflects the deep-rooted commitment to defending its homeland and the socialist state. Western narratives often exaggerate the extent of collaboration in the Soviet Union to discredit communism, but the reality is that Soviet citizens played a crucial role in the defeat of Germany. The war was essentially one between National Socialists because in many ways Stalin was a type of Socialist Nationalist, similar to Hitler, minus the racism. Stalin was a "NazBol".

Lastly, you claim that the Soviet Union was invited to join the Marshall Plan but refused. This is another oversimplification being that the requirements were for the USSR to essentially open itself to American companies and markets. Nice try, but no, we'll remain socialists.

Despite the challenges, the Soviet Union successfully rebuilt its economy after World War II without Marshall Plan aid. By 1970, it had become the second-largest economy in the world, demonstrating its capacity for self-sufficiency and the effectiveness of its socialist economic policies.

So, while you're quick to throw out these criticisms, it's clear that your understanding of Soviet history is shaped by a narrative that oversimplifies and distorts the complexities of that period. The Soviet Union, despite its flaws, achieved significant successes, especially in rebuilding after World War II, advancing in science and technology, and defending itself against its mortal enemies. Reducing these complex historical events to simplistic criticisms only serves to ignore the broader context and the achievements of the Soviet state. Nice try, but you failed again. Go read a book.

If you read many of my comments here, you know that my hatred for Trump is visceral. Saying "What about Trump?" does not work on me.

I was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. This later became Democratic Socialists of America. Currently I prefer social democracy to the American system of casino capitalism, where the odds favor the house.

The Bolshevik Party never won a fair election. The Bolshevik take over was not the popular revolution predicted by Karl Marx. It was a coup by a well armed, well organized minority of political fanatics.

The Bolsheviks had to rule dictatorially from the beginning because they knew they were unpopular in Russia. Many of the men in the Bolshevik secret police had worked previously in the Czarist secret police.

The Bolsheviks came to power with the slogan, "Land, peace, bread." After dividing up the large land holdings of Russian aristocrats, and giving the land to peasants, the Communists took the land back again and formed collective farms. Communist mis management of agriculture did not create bread, but famines.

The immediate result of the Bolshevik take over was the Russian Civil War. I have read that more Russians were killed during the Russian Civil War than during the First World War.

The Bolsheviks did not overthrow the Czar, but the Russian Provisional Government under Alexander Kerensky. If the Russian Provisional Government had remained in power, I doubt there would have been a civil war.

The Russian Army would have continued to fight the German Army on the Eastern Front. It would have continued to lose battles. Nevertheless, Germany was losing on the Western Front. With the need to keep German soldiers on the Eastern Front Germany would have lost the War sooner.

Without the Bolshevik coup, the Russian government would have continued to evolve toward a representative democracy.

In the capitalist West, and particularly in the United States, conservatives always were able to use the Soviet Union as a horrible example of socialism.

A book I recommend for you is The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, by Bertrand Russell.

It is a short book, written in 1920 by a man who spent his adult life on the democratic Left. He traveled to the Soviet Union expecting to like what he saw. He did not like it. Rather than finding a new kind of democracy he found an old kind of tyranny, one resembling the early Muslim movement, and the Reign of Terror in France.

He wrote that every Russian peasant he talked to would have welcomed a return to the Czarist government, and that the Russian workers he talked to resented the fact that the Bolsheviks were well fed, and they were not. In no way was the standard of living of factory workers improved by the Bolshevik coup.

The standard of living for the Bolsheviks did improve. They became the new ruling class.

 

[dblack]

For those who know English, it's clear what it means, it doesn't need to be further defined. It's better for everyone to have a vote and then go with the decision of the majority, than with the decision of a minority. All of the MAGA hats went nuts when they thought that Trump had won the election in 2020, based upon him supposedly getting the majority of votes yet he lost. They were outraged when Biden won because the one who gets the most votes should win. Even the MAGA hat-drones know this.

Right now in America, we have a plutocracy (rule of the rich), rather than a democracy (rule of the people). A system ruled by a small minority of wealthy capitalist elites, who are only interested in their vested interests, often at the expense of everyone else (the American public).



If you're a member of this society, you have to abide by the law. To do otherwise will get you a free vacation in the Grey Bar Hotel. You can go there and enjoy the baloney sandwiches and the purple grape drink.




Polls often show that people have more common sense than they're given credit for. The ruling class pretends otherwise in order to maintain control and impose their will and agenda upon the masses. They assert that everyone is stupid hence they need the supposed smarter elites to rule over them, and what ends up happening is that people are exploited, abused, and later consigned to the compost heap.

tl;dr

The opposite of majority rule is individual liberty. "Minority rule" is just more empty socialist propaganda.

 

[struth]

Lift the sanctions, and I'll go there on vacation and come back to my country. America is going to be socialist soon, and you can't do anything about that. If anyone should leave, it's you.

you can go on vacations there now if you want. Cuba, a great place to visit, but no rational human would want to live there. Leftist policies have ruined it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Your moronic remarks amount to nothing. Senseless gobbledygook.

My points were on target and specific.

 

[TruthNotBS]

My points were on target and specific.

In your dreams and fantasy world.

 

[TruthNotBS]

you can go on vacations there now if you want. Cuba, a great place to visit, but no rational human would want to live there. Leftist policies have ruined it.

Living 90 miles away from the American capitalist empire has ruined it. US-enforced economic terrorism in the form of a brutal embargo is the problem, not socialist policies that always work well.

Even Adolf Hitler, despite his hatred for Karl Marx and Jewish Bolshevism, felt it necessary to implement a Nationalist form of socialism, which transformed Germany into the most prosperous nation on Earth in a few years. HEAVY government intervention and participation in the economy, social programs, the capitalists at the heel of the state, serving the country. If we had that here in America, people like you would be shouting, SOCIALISM!!! COMMIE!!! COMMIE!!!

Most of the modern, industrialized world is "COMMIE!!!!!!!" according to American Republican conservatives. You American right-wingers are always crying, whining about those "SOCIALIST DEMOCRAPS", yeah O.K bucko.

 

[TruthNotBS]

tl;dr

The opposite of majority rule is individual liberty. "Minority rule" is just more empty socialist propaganda.

There's no individual liberty without community or a means to govern it effectively and fairly. Being a lone ranger equates to isolation and death. Try it with your finger. Cutt of circulation for a few hours, you'll get the point. Life survives and thrives in a community, not in a vacuum.

 

[Hector12]

tl;dr

The opposite of majority rule is individual liberty. "Minority rule" is just more empty socialist propaganda.

The opposite of majority rule is individual liberty for the rich. Liberty for them is power over the rest of us.

 

[struth]

Living 90 miles away from the American capitalist empire has ruined it. US-enforced economic terrorism in the form of a brutal embargo is the problem, not socialist policies that always work well.

Even Adolf Hitler, despite his hatred for Karl Marx and Jewish Bolshevism, felt it necessary to implement a Nationalist form of socialism, which transformed Germany into the most prosperous nation on Earth in a few years. HEAVY government intervention and participation in the economy, social programs, the capitalists at the heel of the state, serving the country. If we had that here in America, people like you would be shouting, SOCIALISM!!! COMMIE!!! COMMIE!!!

Most of the modern, industrialized world is "COMMIE!!!!!!!" according to American Republican conservatives. You American right-wingers are always crying, whining about those "SOCIALIST DEMOCRAPS", yeah O.K bucko.

I agree, it can’t compete against capitalism