Yes, You're A Communist

[Norman]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

 

[JQPublic1]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

 

[Norman]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

 

[Mac1958]

When a person is intellectually paralyzed by binary thought processes, it doesn't take much to convince themselves that those to the left of them are communists.

This stuff is always fascinating to observe. Unfortunately, it accomplishes nothing but exacerbate hysteria among a few.
.

 

[JQPublic1]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

 

[Norman]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

So you didn't read the books but know capitalism so well? As has been told to you for 83 pages now, you understand nothing, and refuse to learn either. Are you familiar with the concept of income mobility? The 1% changes every year:



If you are so concerned about income inequality, how about getting a job and stopping contributing to it? Oh, and how about telling the government not to take almost half your income?

Indeed, capitalism has benefited the average guy just as any - if not more. Obviously the richer people have a lot more wealth than the poorer, since young people only have debt or at least no assets to speak of.

Not surprised to see more Marxist coercion justifying nonsense... the regressives...

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is getting so much traction because the Democrat Party IS the new American Communist Party. They haven't yet made the formal announcement and the Dem Base, well Gruber said it: they're plain dumb, so when the announcement find arrives that Dem Party IS Communist, the base will say, "yeah, we knew it, we were just playing along. Fooled ya, right?"

you don't really believe that nonsense, do you?

like i said....a knowledge of political and economic theory and actual definitions of actual words is pretty important.

people on the right seem to have trouble with those concepts.

The "Duck Test" applies....
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

but you can't describe an elephant and then call it a duck.

knowledge is important. get some.

"...knowledge is important. get some."

And....speaking of 'knowledge'......

Post #890 certainly silenced you, huh?


I must have done another masterful job!

Go, me!

Of course, when you put someone to sleep, the person is silent (unless she/he snores!).

Hmmm.....I searched and searched....but couldn't find even a hint of an actual position/opinion on the post referred to....

You're not afraid to make same clear......are you?

Post #890.....my proof that the Democrat Party in modern times is no more than a nom de plume .....or...perhaps nom de guerre is a better fit in this situation.....for the Communist Party.


And you say....???

 

[PoliticalChic]

When a person is intellectually paralyzed by binary thought processes, it doesn't take much to convince themselves that those to the left of them are communists.

This stuff is always fascinating to observe. Unfortunately, it accomplishes nothing but exacerbate hysteria among a few.
.

"When a person is intellectually paralyzed by binary thought processes,..."

Oh, my....yet another example provided by the fence-sitter par excellence!


Imagine....if only you had the courage to actually pick a side and attempt to support same (sigh....)



You: "it accomplishes nothing but exacerbate hysteria among a few."

A real man: "‘BOLD COLORS’ NOT ‘PALE PASTELS’

Isn't this fun?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

I understand the definition of capitalism all too well. And the great capitalist texts (what ever that is) must have been expunged of any such reference as Beckert alluded to in his treatise.

Beckert describes this stage as an “important but often unrecognized phase in the development of capitalism whose history has been erase[d]” by those “craving a nobler, cleaner” account."

Are you questioning Beckert's creditials as well?

No, you have no clue. I bet you haven't ever opened a book which explained capitalism and freedom to you, as you admit in this text. You are living in a self delusion.

You have opened plenty of books which advocated for coercion and theft though. As the deranged regressive Marxist you are...

I have opened those books you mention but I read them tongue-in-cheek. But to confirm YOUR lack of objective study ini regards to capitalism, I point to your use of world GDP charts and references to per capita wealth without seeming to realize most of that wealth is in the hands of a few people. Careful, your ignorance is seeping out.

So you didn't read the books but know capitalism so well? As has been told to you for 83 pages now, you understand nothing, and refuse to learn either. Are you familiar with the concept of income mobility? The 1% changes every year:



If you are so concerned about income inequality, how about getting a job and stopping contributing to it? Oh, and how about telling the government not to take almost half your income?

Indeed, capitalism has benefited the average guy just as any - if not more. Obviously the richer people have a lot more wealth than the poorer, since young people only have debt or at least no assets to speak of.

Not surprised to see more Marxist coercion justifying nonsense... the regressives...

"Indeed, capitalism has benefited the average guy just as any - if not more."

Yup.....way more!

Land slavery...serfdom.....was ended by capitalism.

Even Marx admitted that.
"In England, serfdom had practically disappeared in the last part of the 14th century. The immense majority of the population consisted then, and to a still larger extent, in the fifteenth century, of free peasant proprietors, whatever was the feudal title under which their right of property was hidden. ''
Marx, Capital 1: 671; also pp. 672, 676.


Capitalism is to liberty as a knowledge of knots is to being an Eagle Scout.

 

[JQPublic1]

So you didn't read the books but know capitalism so well? As has been told to you for 83 pages now, you understand nothing, and refuse to learn either. Are you familiar with the concept of income mobility? The 1% changes every year:

It does not seem to register with you when I tell you I read any books, right or left, tongue-in-cheek until I have verified the veracity of the author. But, of course, I don't have to read every opinion out there to come to a conclusion. That is what the experts do. There are experts on both sides of economic issues but some have a track record of being more accurate than others and with less bias. BTW there is nothing YOU have said or posted is new to me. The history of capitalism is taught in grade school and one of the first things kids learned when I was a grade schooler was about the workplace before liberals reformed it. The 1% doesn't change much every year and a lot of that change is due to old age and death. The some one inherits it who didn't earn it or, more likely, steal it… thereby keeping it in the family so to speak.

If you are so concerned about income inequality, how about getting a job and stopping contributing to it? Oh, and how about telling the government not to take almost half your income?

I've retired twice. And my income is pretty damn good. If you are worried about the government taking too much of your income, move to a state that doesn't have an income tax or has a low one. That will ease your burden somewhat.

Indeed, capitalism has benefited the average guy just as any - if not more. Obviously the richer people have a lot more wealth than the poorer, since young people only have debt or at least no assets to speak of.

i don't deny that capitalism has benefited the average guy. But so has socialism, especially in the USA where the two systems merge because of liberal and progressive movements.. For me that economic dichotomy brings a sense of security that someone in government has my back.

Not surprised to see more Marxist coercion justifying nonsense... the
regressives...

There you go trying to steal a word used by liberals in the past to define conservatives. Conservatives and their draconian ideals are regressive. that is why one of Obama's campaign slogans was " to go forward you put the gear shift in "D" and to go backwards you put it in "R". From what I know of the GOP and conservatism, that statement is axiomatic.

 

[Mac1958]

Are there any communists in the GOP? There certainly are moderates, do they qualify?

 

[Norman]

So you didn't read the books but know capitalism so well? As has been told to you for 83 pages now, you understand nothing, and refuse to learn either. Are you familiar with the concept of income mobility? The 1% changes every year:

It does not seem to register with you when I tell you I read any books, right or left tongue-in-cheek until I have verified the veracity of the author. But, of course, I don't have to read every opinion out there to come to a conclusion. That is what the experts do. There are experts on both sides of economic issues but some have a track record of being more accurate than others and with less bias. BTW there is nothing YOU have said or posted is new to me. The history of capitalism is taught in grade school and one of the first things kids learned when I was a grade schooler was about the workplace before liberals reformed it. The 1% doesn't change much every year and a lot of that change is due to old age and death. The some one inherits it who didn't earn it or, more likely, steal it… thereby keeping it in the family so to speak.

If you are so concerned about income inequality, how about getting a job and stopping contributing to it? Oh, and how about telling the government not to take almost half your income?

I've retired twice. And my income is pretty damn good. If you are worried about the government taking too much of your income, move to a state that doesn't have an income tax or has a low one. That will ease your burden somewhat.

Thanks for admitting that you were indoctrinated to Marxism. In normal grade school we learn the alphabet and basic math. Worker's rights and other Marxist indoctrination does not even come to the picture.

This must have been the "schooling" you received:


Retired guy living on stolen income from the young (social security) supporting Marxism, then crying about exploitation. What a surprise...

 

[jillian]

This thread is getting so much traction because the Democrat Party IS the new American Communist Party. They haven't yet made the formal announcement and the Dem Base, well Gruber said it: they're plain dumb, so when the announcement find arrives that Dem Party IS Communist, the base will say, "yeah, we knew it, we were just playing along. Fooled ya, right?"

you don't really believe that nonsense, do you?

like i said....a knowledge of political and economic theory and actual definitions of actual words is pretty important.

people on the right seem to have trouble with those concepts.

The "Duck Test" applies....
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

but you can't describe an elephant and then call it a duck.

knowledge is important. get some.

"...knowledge is important. get some."

And....speaking of 'knowledge'......

Post #890 certainly silenced you, huh?


I must have done another masterful job!

Go, me!

Of course, when you put someone to sleep, the person is silent (unless she/he snores!).

the cut and paste queen is desperate for attention and validation.

 

[Mac1958]

At what point does one qualify as a Communist?

Support of a specific top marginal income tax rate? Which one? Support of a specific department?

Let's get specific here, instead of the standard talk show platitudes.
.

 

[bripat9643]

The delusion of JQPublic1 is unparalleled. He still does not understand the definition of capitalism. After 90 pages.

And as a communist he won't. You have to be completely brainwashed to believe in that nonsense.

What you define as "war capitalism", is not capitalism. Again, you won't find a chapter advocating war and pillaging in the great capitalist texts.

So called "war capitalism" is another name for socialism.

 

[koshergrl]

Okay, so then you must agree that the throngs of RW'ers on this forum, for example, including the OP of this thread,
are fucking idiots for calling Obama a Marxist.

Eh?

No I mustn't, they are incorrect when they label Obama a Marxist, my theory is that the reason that they call Obama a "Marxist" is that like yourself they've never read any of Karl Marx's works and also like you they have a tendency to parrot the opinions that their partisans masters feed them.

What horseshit, total ad hominem. And I'm sure you think you've said something smart there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I own property, PolticalChic doesn't,

and she thinks I'M the Communist.

lolol

 

[koshergrl]

I own property, PolticalChic doesn't,

and she thinks I'M the Communist.

lolol

Lots of communists own property. The.problem is that they lie, cheat, steal and kill to get it.

 

[JQPublic1]

So you didn't read the books but know capitalism so well? As has been told to you for 83 pages now, you understand nothing, and refuse to learn either. Are you familiar with the concept of income mobility? The 1% changes every year:

It does not seem to register with you when I tell you I read any books, right or left tongue-in-cheek until I have verified the veracity of the author. But, of course, I don't have to read every opinion out there to come to a conclusion. That is what the experts do. There are experts on both sides of economic issues but some have a track record of being more accurate than others and with less bias. BTW there is nothing YOU have said or posted is new to me. The history of capitalism is taught in grade school and one of the first things kids learned when I was a grade schooler was about the workplace before liberals reformed it. The 1% doesn't change much every year and a lot of that change is due to old age and death. The some one inherits it who didn't earn it or, more likely, steal it… thereby keeping it in the family so to speak.

If you are so concerned about income inequality, how about getting a job and stopping contributing to it? Oh, and how about telling the government not to take almost half your income?

I've retired twice. And my income is pretty damn good. If you are worried about the government taking too much of your income, move to a state that doesn't have an income tax or has a low one. That will ease your burden somewhat.

Thanks for admitting that you were indoctrinated to Marxism. In normal grade school we learn the alphabet and basic math. Worker's rights and other Marxist indoctrination does not even come to the picture.

This must have been the "schooling" you received:


Retired guy living on stolen income from the young (social security) supporting Marxism, then crying about exploitation. What a surprise...

A well rounded education includes all aspects of life and things in the world we need to survive in it. If your's fell short by not including unexpurgated history from various perspectives that would explain the poverty of your worldview.

My retirement income comes from three sources, pension, Social Security and wise investments via Thrift Savings while I was employed. That is why I love my country. I am comfortable in retirement due to careful planning and by paying into social security. Not everyone makes that choice and some people, like you, probably lost a lot of their retirement savings under the Bush administration's fiasco. I was fortunate that I didn't fall into THAT investment trap! How much did you lose, loser?

 

[JQPublic1]

I own property, PolticalChic doesn't,

and she thinks I'M the Communist.

lolol

Lots of communists own property. The.problem is that they lie, cheat, steal and kill to get it.

\BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. And the capitalist are just darling little angels who worked hard and made their immense fortunes by being kind and nice! Stop it already… Stop it!