Why Are You A Communist?

[Tom Sweetnam]

And who, pray tell, are these communists?

I guess that is for them to say, isn't it? After all, the question is directed at the communists. Why are your feathers so ruffled over this?

Channeling Joe McCarthy – the reactionary right never changes.

If one's politics don't perfectly mesh with a Reactionaries, it's just too simple for that Reactionary to cry "Communist!" without any further consideration.

That's why all politics that are not in line with lassez faire Capitalism coupled with repressive civil liberties policies can be labeled Communism by the Rabid Right. Fascism, Socialism, Liberalism, and Authoritarianism all meld together in the minds of Reactionaries.

Lack of nuance coupled with a poor understanding of politics makes for a shallow Reactionary outlook.

Oh comrade! I'm blubbering alligator tears into my crying towel at your purple prosaic perplexity. Honestly friend, you sound really confused. Drugs is it? I'll bet you deny that the worst scourge ever visited on humanity is a rightie hoax? 140 million murdered and to you it never happened? Idiot.

 

[S.J.]

Do any of you lefties who aren't communists believe in wealth redistribution? Yes or No.

Do you mean wealth distribution the way trickle down economic policies redistribute wealth?

Yes or no, asshole?

Well, do you mean redistribution from the bottom up as in trickle down or redistribution from the top down?

And are you mature enough to leave out the sophomoric comments? Let's see....

I'm talking about politicians taking money from someone and giving to someone else. Is that clear enough for you? If you don't want to answer the question, don't waste my time.

Well again, trickle down did the same thing. Are you in favor of that type of wealth redistribution?

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

 

[Clementine]

Wow, the OP asked a simple question, directed to communists, and the liberals here go nuts.

 

[S.J.]

Wow, the OP asked a simple question, directed to communists, and the liberals here go nuts.

But none of them are communists.

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you mean wealth distribution the way trickle down economic policies redistribute wealth?

Yes or no, asshole?

Well, do you mean redistribution from the bottom up as in trickle down or redistribution from the top down?

And are you mature enough to leave out the sophomoric comments? Let's see....

I'm talking about politicians taking money from someone and giving to someone else. Is that clear enough for you? If you don't want to answer the question, don't waste my time.

Well again, trickle down did the same thing. Are you in favor of that type of wealth redistribution?

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

 

[Clementine]

Wow, the OP asked a simple question, directed to communists, and the liberals here go nuts.

But none of them are communists.

Yup, no one says they are communist, but I definitely saw some defense for communists. Even bought up McCarthy, as if he was eeeevil. But, no, they aren't communists.

Oh well, when you want instant entertainment, just ask a simple question and watch the liberals go into convulsions over it.

 

[S.J.]

Yes or no, asshole?

Well, do you mean redistribution from the bottom up as in trickle down or redistribution from the top down?

And are you mature enough to leave out the sophomoric comments? Let's see....

I'm talking about politicians taking money from someone and giving to someone else. Is that clear enough for you? If you don't want to answer the question, don't waste my time.

Well again, trickle down did the same thing. Are you in favor of that type of wealth redistribution?

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

 

[Bfgrn]

There are very few 'communists' around these days. Mostly because the ones who favor it are too stupid to even know what it is.

Most of these nitwits are simply totalitarian scumbags who believe that the scum of the earth dimocraps will practice a form of Stalinism that will favor them with their appointments to the nomenklatura and become apparatchiks and other non-contributing pieces of shit to an all-power State.

communism, as Marx described it, is not a bad scenario. Not bad at all.

True communism is the ABSENCE of government of any kind.

I won't bore you, but Marx warned about idiots and totalitarians trying to go straight to communism without going through the necessary Capitalist Stage. He predicted, with 100% accuracy, the Soviet Union and what would happen to them.

Don't feel like looking for it in the volumes of nonsense he (and mostly Engels) wrote on the delusional theory, but I am correct on this one.

dimocraps are a piss-poor excuse for socialists, communists or any other group of humans.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth.

Period.

I could talk to, and possibly come to an agreement with, a true socialist, a communist or even those worthless hippies of the right -- Liberturdians, but not with a dimocrap.

NEVER with a dimocrap.

dimocraps are lying scum. The entire party is rotten to the core. All it knows how to do is lie, deceive and back-stab.

If leftists have ANY hope for the future, they will destroy that lump of shit and rebuild it.

But they won't. The reason it IS a lump of shit is because of the people that run it.

Horse shit.

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Moron.

Republicans are NOT 'conservatives'....... Whatever the **** that is.

Republicans are the true, classic liberals. Always have been. Who fought to free Slaves. Who passed the Constitutional Amendments forbidding it? Who voted for the 1964 CRA in higher percentages? Who was Everett Dirkson? Who..... Moron

dimocraps are Radicals.

Since everything you define depends entirely on your viewpoint, a radical scumbag WOULD think that Republicans are 'conservative' since your view of life is from that of a radical.

And, what is a conservative, pray tell?

Was Stalin a liberal or a conservative? How about Mao? How about Fidel? How about 'ugo and his successor Maduro?

Was Pol Pot a liberal or a conservative.

What you dirtbags do is simple...... Anybody you don't like becomes a 'conservative' Even if he was redistributionist and started out as a rabid 'liberal'

The second he turns into something you don't like, you immediately attach the term 'conservative' to him

This is why I despise dimocrap scum. Everything they do is a lie. Every debate they bring up is based on a lie.

These disgusting human beings can't even walk straight.

WOW, talk about a MORON. First you start out saying you are a liberal, THEN you try to say Stalin and Mao were liberals.

Who fought to free the slaves? A Republican party that was dominated by liberals when the Democratic party was dominated by southern conservatives. The two parties have completely flipped since Lincoln led the GOP.

Who PROPOSED the 1964 CRA? John F. Kennedy. Who pushed it through congress? LBJ. Who voted in higher percentages for the CRA? Democrats. Who was Everett Dirksen? A compassionate northern conservative and a decent man.

What Mao Zedong said about liberalism
"Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads"
Combat Liberalism



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was proposed by President Kennedy, and pushed for very hard by President Johnson. Northern Republicans like Everett Dirksen certainly helped pass the bill, and to overcome and out-maneuver the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) who launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. But support for the bill was divided along the same lines as the Civil War.

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–-87 (7%–-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–-10 (0%–-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–-20 (5%–-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–-1 (0%–-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–-16%)

"The mind is no match with the heart in persuasion; constitutionality is no match with compassion."
Everett Dirksen

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

 

[Iceweasel]

Hard to find any Communists in Russia or China, let alone here. Your labeling of anyone that disagrees with your radical view of the world is simply an indication of your mental problems.

Seems I see a LOT of this type of rhetoric here.


Home cpusa

• What are the CPUSA views on the environment?
  One of our main slogans is "People and Nature Before Profits." We are for developing policy that provides for a sustainable economy and a sustainable ecology. Where possible, we participate in environmental movements, and recognize and work on the environmental aspects of struggles on the shop floor and in unions.
  
  We oppose drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and we oppose the use of nuclear power until there is a safe way to dispose of waste (and if there is no safe way, don't use nuclear power at all). We fight against subjecting workers to untested new chemical compounds with unknown health consequences, currently being introduced at the rate of 3,000 or 4,000 new compounds each year. We support the use of sustainable forest practices, which also are more labor intensive, creating new jobs and job retraining for laid-off lumber workers.
  
  We seek to build unity between the environmental movement and other important movements: the labor, civil rights, women's, youth, peace, and immigrant rights movements, to name a few.
  
  To build a better world, we must have a world to build on. The greatest environmental threat is that of nuclear war. We are for complete disarmament and for the destruction of all nuclear weapons.
  
  There was environmental damage in the former socialist countries. Some of that was due to their efforts at forced industrialization, which put the environmental dangers of such development low on their list of priorities. A related problem was that in adopting machinery and industrial processes from advanced capitalist countries, they unintentionally adopted the capitalist economic realities embedded in the machinery and processes. In other words, capitalist industrial development is based on not having to pay the costs for most of the waste products it generates. When socialist countries used that as a model to develop their own industry, they ended up with the same skewed industrial waste model.
  
  They did this for several good reasons—to short cut the process of technological change, to quickly provide more goods for their citizens, to be able to compete with capitalist countries. However, unintentionally, adopting technological processes designed to function in capitalist reality, they brought in environmental problems that relied on the ability of industries to dump waste without paying the social and environmental costs. To adapt, rather than just adopt, major industrial processes will take more time.
  
  
• 
  
  
• What does the Communist Party stand for?
  The Communist Party stands for the interests of the American working class and the American people. It stands for our interests in both the present and the future. Solidarity with workers of other countries is also part of our work. We work in coalition with the labor movement, the peace movement, the student movement, organizations fighting for equality and social justice, the environmental movement, immigrants rights groups and the health care for all campaign.
  
  But to win a better life for working families, we believe that we must go further. We believe that the American people can replace capitalism with a system that puts people before profit - socialism.
  
  We are rooted in our country's revolutionary history and its struggles for democracy. We call for "Bill of Rights" socialism, guaranteeing full individual freedoms.
  
  Until we win enough support to change the system, communists call for radical reforms under capitalism. We call for nationalization of the banks, railroads, and industries like steel and auto. Everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job or get unemployment payments until she/he can find a job. We say put the unemployed to work at union wages on massive public works programs to rebuild our cities, provide affordable housing for the homeless, build mass transit, and clean up the environment!
  
  Our outlook is based on the social science of Marxism-Leninism. We study history, politics and economics in order to change the world.

I see a lot of KKK rhetoric here from the RWnuts.

That makes communism look better to you?

 

[Moonglow]

Wow, the OP asked a simple question, directed to communists, and the liberals here go nuts.

I went bananas...

 

[Nosmo King]

Well, do you mean redistribution from the bottom up as in trickle down or redistribution from the top down?

And are you mature enough to leave out the sophomoric comments? Let's see....

I'm talking about politicians taking money from someone and giving to someone else. Is that clear enough for you? If you don't want to answer the question, don't waste my time.

Well again, trickle down did the same thing. Are you in favor of that type of wealth redistribution?

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

 

[S.J.]

I'm talking about politicians taking money from someone and giving to someone else. Is that clear enough for you? If you don't want to answer the question, don't waste my time.

Well again, trickle down did the same thing. Are you in favor of that type of wealth redistribution?

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

They're evasive, condescending, and insulting to one's intelligence. You post like a child and cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Roadrunner]

Wow, the OP asked a simple question, directed to communists, and the liberals here go nuts.

But none of them are communists.

Yup, no one says they are communist, but I definitely saw some defense for communists. Even bought up McCarthy, as if he was eeeevil. But, no, they aren't communists.

Oh well, when you want instant entertainment, just ask a simple question and watch the liberals go into convulsions over it.

McCarthy was evil.

God got him.

Most "fellow travellers", ie, "useful idiots", wouldn't know a real communist until lined up and shot.

 

[Nosmo King]

Well again, trickle down did the same thing. Are you in favor of that type of wealth redistribution?

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

They're evasive, condescending, and insulting to one's intelligence. You post like a child and cannot be taken seriously.

You're right. I have no command of the English language. I am prone to spelling and grammar mistakes. My thoughts are seldom organized.

We all know those to be lies.

The fact of the matter is I'm a Liberal who happens to be far more eloquent than you and you are supremely frustrated. You cannot convince me of your ideology, your arguments (especially the insipidly loaded question as posed in the OP) or your personal righteousness.

The above post was written 'like' a child, right?

 

[S.J.]

That's not wealth redistribution, moron. Stop wasting my time. You're obviously not intelligent enough to debate me or anyone else.

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

They're evasive, condescending, and insulting to one's intelligence. You post like a child and cannot be taken seriously.

You're right. I have no command of the English language. I am prone to spelling and grammar mistakes. My thoughts are seldom organized.

We all know those to be lies.

The fact of the matter is I'm a Liberal who happens to be far more eloquent than you and you are supremely frustrated. You cannot convince me of your ideology, your arguments (especially the insipidly loaded question as posed in the OP) or your personal righteousness.

The above post was written 'like' a child, right?

I don't care to convince you of anything. Seems you're the one who is trying to convince me you are intelligent. I don't care if you are or not, I just asked a straight question and you aren't willing to answer it, so what's the point in engaging you any further. Now please, go away, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

 

[Nosmo King]

I can understand how a simple mind can get frustrated and retreat as you did. Good luck with that thinking part of life.

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

They're evasive, condescending, and insulting to one's intelligence. You post like a child and cannot be taken seriously.

You're right. I have no command of the English language. I am prone to spelling and grammar mistakes. My thoughts are seldom organized.

We all know those to be lies.

The fact of the matter is I'm a Liberal who happens to be far more eloquent than you and you are supremely frustrated. You cannot convince me of your ideology, your arguments (especially the insipidly loaded question as posed in the OP) or your personal righteousness.

The above post was written 'like' a child, right?

I don't care to convince you of anything. Seems you're the one who is trying to convince me you are intelligent. I don't care if you are or not, I just asked a straight question and you aren't willing to answer it, so what's the point in engaging you any further. Now please, go away, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

As you continually repeat.

Now, the question is: Do I favor wealth redistribution?

I countered with: do you favor the wealth distribution techniques of Supply Side or Trickle Down or, as former President George H.W. Bush called it, Voodoo Economics.

For you see, both the Socialist form of wealth distribution (the type I assume you are eluding to) and Supply Side economics are both 'wealth redistribution'. One taxes the extremely wealthy and those tax dollars fund programs beneficial to the majority. The other implements policies that allow the very wealthy to sequester greater amounts of their wealth in the hope that those wealthy individuals might come under the spell of nobliss oblige and shower the economy with their gains accumulated by federal tax policy and lack of financial oversight.

One system builds an economy from the bottom up, the other builds up a wealthy class with no guarantee of return.

 

[S.J.]

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

They're evasive, condescending, and insulting to one's intelligence. You post like a child and cannot be taken seriously.

You're right. I have no command of the English language. I am prone to spelling and grammar mistakes. My thoughts are seldom organized.

We all know those to be lies.

The fact of the matter is I'm a Liberal who happens to be far more eloquent than you and you are supremely frustrated. You cannot convince me of your ideology, your arguments (especially the insipidly loaded question as posed in the OP) or your personal righteousness.

The above post was written 'like' a child, right?

I don't care to convince you of anything. Seems you're the one who is trying to convince me you are intelligent. I don't care if you are or not, I just asked a straight question and you aren't willing to answer it, so what's the point in engaging you any further. Now please, go away, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

As you continually repeat.

Now, the question is: Do I favor wealth redistribution?

I countered with: do you favor the wealth distribution techniques of Supply Side or Trickle Down or, as former President George H.W. Bush called it, Voodoo Economics.

For you see, both the Socialist form of wealth distribution (the type I assume you are eluding to) and Supply Side economics are both 'wealth redistribution'. One taxes the extremely wealthy and those tax dollars fund programs beneficial to the majority. The other implements policies that allow the very wealthy to sequester greater amounts of their wealth in the hope that those wealthy individuals might come under the spell of nobliss oblige and shower the economy with their gains accumulated by federal tax policy and lack of financial oversight.

One system builds an economy from the bottom up, the other builds up a wealthy class with no guarantee of return.

What part of "**** off" do you not understand?

 

[Nosmo King]

And you said I post like a child!

Oh you kid!

 

[Bfgrn]

Anyone can look at your posts and decide for themselves if you have a clue.

I'm proud of my posts. They're honest, well written, concise and hardly ever condescending.

You realize folks can read your posts too, right?

They're evasive, condescending, and insulting to one's intelligence. You post like a child and cannot be taken seriously.

You're right. I have no command of the English language. I am prone to spelling and grammar mistakes. My thoughts are seldom organized.

We all know those to be lies.

The fact of the matter is I'm a Liberal who happens to be far more eloquent than you and you are supremely frustrated. You cannot convince me of your ideology, your arguments (especially the insipidly loaded question as posed in the OP) or your personal righteousness.

The above post was written 'like' a child, right?

I don't care to convince you of anything. Seems you're the one who is trying to convince me you are intelligent. I don't care if you are or not, I just asked a straight question and you aren't willing to answer it, so what's the point in engaging you any further. Now please, go away, I'm not wasting any more time on you.

As you continually repeat.

Now, the question is: Do I favor wealth redistribution?

I countered with: do you favor the wealth distribution techniques of Supply Side or Trickle Down or, as former President George H.W. Bush called it, Voodoo Economics.

For you see, both the Socialist form of wealth distribution (the type I assume you are eluding to) and Supply Side economics are both 'wealth redistribution'. One taxes the extremely wealthy and those tax dollars fund programs beneficial to the majority. The other implements policies that allow the very wealthy to sequester greater amounts of their wealth in the hope that those wealthy individuals might come under the spell of nobliss oblige and shower the economy with their gains accumulated by federal tax policy and lack of financial oversight.

One system builds an economy from the bottom up, the other builds up a wealthy class with no guarantee of return.

Exactly!

Reagan: The Great American Socialist

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.