The racist mindset of liberals, black or white

reply to post by OneL0ve


With up to 70 members of the Democratic Socialists of America being involved in the Democrat Party, it ceases to be anything but a defacto socialist party within government. That should frighten anyone, especially one who has come from a formerly communist country. I understand that you meant to not give emphasis to any one party.
You also managed to insult my character now in addition to continuing to create disdain for the Republicans and then to summarily dismiss me with the typical have a happy day comment, so that's fine.

Why do you not tackle the very things in the Democrat Party which promote the things the communists promoted in so called former communist bloc countries? I do question that. I should think you would have spotted it a mile away. And yet you still promote that it's the bad Republicans.

So with that, happy mother's day to you

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Socialism is not what you think it is, we've had this discussion before.

If you had a good understanding of socialism, instead of what you have been told it is by the state, you would realise there has been no full socialism anywhere. Even though there has been, and are, many worker owned companies, no national economy has been worker owned and controlled.

Socialism is not a political system, it's an economic system, and there has been no country that has had a socialist economy. Government control of the means to produce is state-capitalism, private ownership by the state for the benefit of party members. No worse than western capitalism. Both exploit the workers.

I asked you this question once and you never answered it so I'll ask again, please think logically not emotionally,

"how can anarchists be socialists if socialism is a state government system?"

And yes there is no argument that anarchists were socialists, libertarian socialists.

"Anarchist stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin, "The Political Philosophy of Bakunin", p. 269

Reading of Bakunin is essential in understanding left wing politics.

Some other famous anarchist authors...

"Anarchism is the no-government system of socialism" Peter Kropotkin. "Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets", p. 46

In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear: and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth. And. . . they maintain that the ideal of the political organisation of society is a condition of things where the functions of government are reduced to minimum. . . [and] that the ultimate aim of society is the reduction of the functions of government to nil -- that is, to a society without government, to an-archy" Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 46

"Anarchism is the abolition of exploitation and oppression of man by man, that is the abolition of private property [i.e. capitalism] and government." Errico Malatesta, "Towards Anarchism, in Man!", M. Graham (Ed), p. 75

And from the American Heritage Dictionary...

LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.

SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers [workers] possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods [the means of production].

From that we get...

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.

The difference between Marxist socialists and anarchist was the Marxists wanted a planned set progress to a final goal, worker ownership, thus the Communist Manifesto. The anarchists wanted a methodological approach to social change, rather than the dogmatism of the Marxists. The anarchists didn't see socialism as the final goal, but simply the next stage in our economic evolution.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

So, let me get this straight Third Eye - what you're saying is it's the communists what done this to us?

That would be a bit simplistic. But communist subversion is definitely the culprit in much of what is going wrong today. Professor Antony Sutton explains that some of the wealthy industrialists and bankers profited off the expansion of the communist revolution and also of the fascist regimes. So while communists typically spout off all kinds of anti-Capitalist rhetoric, they still enjoy the promotion by monied interests.

Without Capital, what money is there to redistribute?

Here is an example of the merging of Capitalist venture with totalitarian control

IG Farben merged with Rockefeller before the war, and Rockefeller is Allopathy. Rockefeller funded Hitler's eugenics programme (ref). For all practical purposes, the Rockefellers and I.G. Farben were the Third Reich.]

"One CFR published policy objective is substantial worldwide depopulation including half of the current U.S. population being targeted. This population reduction program is largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merck Fund, both financially and administratively linked to the Merck pharmaceutical company--the world's leading vaccine manufacturer........Records show the Merck pharmaceutical company received a major share of the Nazi "flight capital" at the close of World War II when its president, George W. Merck, was America's biological weapons industry director. These facts were revealed by Norman Covert, Army public relations director at Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD, and veteran news correspondent Paul Manning in his book "Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile" (Lyle Stuart, Inc, 1981). "---Dr Horowitz

www.whale.to...

Professor Sutton stated, "Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western Firms and banks." "In the Bolshevik Revolution we have some of the world's richest and most powerful men financing a movement which claims its very existence is based on the concept of stripping of their wealth," declared Allen. "[M]en like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Schiffs, Warburgs, Morgans, Harrimans, and Milners."

Perloff agreed, "Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., heavily bankrolled the [Communist] revolution. This was reported by White Russian General Arsine de Goulevitch in his book Czarism and the Revolution." "According to his grandson John," described Allen, "Jacob Schiff ... long-time associate of the Rothschilds, financed the Communist Revolution in Russia to the tune of $20 million." He continued, "According to a report on file with the State Department, his firm, Kuhn Loeb and Co. bankrolled the first five year plan for Stalin," and added, "Schiff's descendents are active in the Council on Foreign Relations today."

Referring to the emergence of a communist dictatorship which resulted from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, Professor Marrs wrote that they were funded by "Germany and America. ... Their repugnant campaign to purify and cleanse Mother Russia and to seek world domination resulted in ... [millions of] human beings wiped out and brutally purged..." He attested, "Brown Brothers Harriman" helped finance it with "money made possible by it and the affiliated Guaranty Trust Company." Professor Sutton agreed, writing "W. Averell Harriman was a director of Guaranty Trust Company" and "was involved in the Bolshevik Revolution."

www.thehiddenevil.com...

It can be noted that even today the Communist Party can be seen condemning Wall Street but the original Communist Revolution was funded heavily by Wall Street bankers and industrialists.

George Soros today funds all kinds of leftist organizations designed expressly to undermine freedom and liberty in the US and worldwide, and yet he is a Wall Street vampire if ever I did see one.

Communist regimes have murdered many millions of people and enslaved even more.
Those who promote communistic and socialistic ideals and programs are endorsed by CPUSA and other communist and socialist groups.

Today they call it Globalism, as it's a much nicer sounding word due to the fact that communism was exposed for the devilish system it is.
The Agenda 21 people are calling it happy sounding things like "Smart Growth" and "sustainable development".

But to bring this back into the focus of the OP topic: my original point was that the communist party recruits blacks and minorities and women in an effort to grow their organization and spread communism throughout the world. CPUSA specifically endorses those who promote such things as redistribution of income, and nationalization of various industries.
The welfare state itself is part of the function of communist centralized control and redistribution of income.
Don't get me wrong though, there are Progressives within the Republican Party.

reply to post by ANOK


I thought about responding to your posts, but what good would it do?

But your discussion of Libertarian ideals does give me a chance to point out that some Libertarians are really leftists in sheep's clothing.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
But your discussion of Libertarian ideals does give me a chance to point out that some Libertarians are really leftists in sheep's clothing.

You didn't read my post did you? I can tell by your reply.

Real libertarians ARE left wing. They have to be by definition, definitions you have ass backwards, like a lot of people who believe what they're told and are afraid to read anything that might contradict their twisted world view.

No, don't bother to reply because you have nothing to reply with, other than your claims that you offer nothing in support of. If you want to refute my claims then you have to do better than type out words with nothing to support them.

I bet you don't even know who Bakunin is, do you? You probably think Marx is the farther of socialism?

It's impossible to debate you because your understanding is completely different to mine, and most of the rest of the world. I at least understand your misunderstandings, because I understand the whole picture, not just what I've been told it is. Crack open a book sometime, and at least learn about what you are arguing against.

living in a country doesn't make anyone an expert on political, and economic systems. A lot of people in America don't understand their own capitalist economy.

reply to post by ANOK

Real libertarians ARE left wing

No, only left leaning Libertarians are left wing. There are right leaning Libertarians as well. But as long as you keep putting it into the false left/right paradigm with right leaning people represented as authoritarian and left leaners as liberty loving anarchists, you are going to be confused.

I bet you don't even know who Bakunin is, do you? You probably think Marx is the farther of socialism?

Yes, I do know who Bakunin is and what does it matter? No, Marx is the father of communism, but since socialism is used interchangeably with communism by both Lenin and Marx, what does that matter?

Both communism and socialism have abolition of private property as their goal, and especially socialism seeks to redistribute income to establish "equality" and create the "classless society" you think you want.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
No, only left leaning Libertarians are left wing. There are right leaning Libertarians as well. But as long as you keep putting it into the false left/right paradigm with right leaning people represented as authoritarian and left leaners as liberty loving anarchists, you are going to be confused.

Right leaning libertarians are frauds. Libertarian cannot be right wing.

Yes, I do know who Bakun is and what does it matter? No, Marx is the father of communism, but since socialism is used interchangeably with communism by both Lenin and Marx, what does that matter?

Socialism and communism are the same thing.

Bakunin is important in context with the question I asked you that you keep ignoring. Seems to me you simply play ignorant in order to not address anything that refutes your claims.

Seeing as you know who he is, how could Bakunin be a socialist and an anarchist?

I'm guessing you'll say Bakunin was a socialist masquerading as an anarchist, I know how you operate.

reply to post by ANOK

Seeing as you know who he is, how could Bakunin be a socialist and an anarchist?

Let's just say that anarchism is a tool used to move an agenda forward. The ends justify the means and all that.

Socialism by definition is collectivist. How can you have individual liberty under a collectivist social structure? John Dewey is the perfect example of a Totalitarian who believed that people exist for the State.

Here is incidentally why just because someone says they came from a communist country and are Libertarian doesn't mean they are truly for individual liberty:

Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property.[4] Social anarchism is used to specifically describe tendencies within anarchism that have an emphasis on the communitarian and cooperative aspects of anarchist theory and practice. Social anarchism is generally considered an umbrella term that includes (but is not limited to) anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, and social ecology.

en.wikipedia.org...

So yes, people who say they are for social anarchy are still under the umbrella of collectivism, which is manifested in communism and socialism.

Try as you might, you are not going to convince me that Bakunin is for freedom and liberty, nor is anyone sporting for collectivist agendas of any kind. He may hope that people will voluntarily submit to having their money and property divided up among others, but ultimately it would have to be enforced by the State. Of course Lenin knew this, and he knew that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" was necessary to achieve the goals of a communist state.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Let's just say that anarchism is a tool used to move an agenda forward. The ends justify the means and all that.

Then you'd be wrong, and again you fail to answer my question. I am not surprised.

Anarchism was the revolutionary wing of socialism. Bakunin represented the anarchist workers in the International Workers Association (IWA the 1st International), along side Marx. They disagreed over methods of reaching socialism.

Oh and some more on libertarianism that you missed before I think....

"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid." Bob Black "The Abolition of Work"

Right wing libertarianism is authoritarianism so the term is being used incorrectly by the right. This is nothing new in politics as we saw it with the USSR, and Cuba, and China, that were right wing authoritarian systems, and were the complete opposite of socialism.

As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.” This is perfectly understandable, as the anarchist goal is freedom, liberty, and the ending of all hierarchical and authoritarian institutions and social relations.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

150 years of Libertarian

The original meaning of a term is the true meaning, no one has a right to redefine a term. It's just another example of the right appropriating left wing terms and using them to mean the opposite.

Historically, Bakunin’s criticism of Marx’s “authoritarian” aims has tended to overshadow Marx’s critique of Bakunin’s “authoritarian” aims. This is in large part due to the fact that mainstream anarchism and Marxism have been polarized over a myth—that of Marx’s authoritarian statism—which they both share. Thus, the conflict in the First International is directly identified with a disagreement over anti-authoritarian principles, and Marx’s hostility toward Bakunin is said to stem from his rejection of these principles, his vanguardism, etc. Anarchism, not without justification, posits itself as the “libertarian” alternative to the “authoritarianism” of mainstream Marxism....

libcom.org...

I have provided enough to make my point, if you actually read anything, looks like you're not going to make an effort, so I'm gonna bow out, sorry for taking the thread off topic.

reply to post by ANOK


So there you have it. Bakunin is a collectivist no matter how many times you scramble the eggs.

For some, the intensity of the conflict has been puzzling, given that the two authors seem to be struggling for identical goals. Convinced that capitalism is predicated on the exploitation of workers by capitalists, they were equally dedicated to fighting for a socialist society where economic classes would be abolished and all individuals would have the opportunity to develop all of their creative capacities. Hence, both envisioned socialism as eliminating the division of labor, especially between mental and manual work, and between men and women. In other words, the work process was to be transformed so that all workers would take an active role in the organization, design and implementation of it. Moreover, both argued that the oppressed must liberate themselves – one should not expect any benevolent impulses from members of the ruling, capitalist class; and to insure success, the revolution must assume an international scope. Finally, they agreed that the State was an instrument of class oppression, not some neutral organ that equitably represented everyone’s interests, and in the final analysis must be abolished. The 1871 Paris Commune offered, in their opinion, a model to be emulated.

However, their most profound point of disagreement centered on their conflicting analyses of the State. Most importantly, while Marx envisioned a transitional stage between capitalism and a fully mature communist society, which included a state in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., a workers’ state), Bakunin adamantly rejected the establishment of any kind of state, including a workers’ state. In fact, this rejection is the defining principle of the school of anarchism, a term that literally translates as “no government”. For Bakunin, the only consistent, revolutionary option was to move immediately to a fully mature communist society which, both authors agreed, would be distinguished by the absence of a state. As a corollary to this disagreement, Marx supported attempts by independently organized workers to pursue their class interests by pressing for reforms within the bourgeois state – for example, for a reduction in the length of the working day – arguing that such victories would promote class consciousness, whereas Bakunin contested this proposal on the grounds that any political engagement whatsoever would constitute a perversion of the revolutionary movement and instead advocated complete abstention from the bourgeois political arena. The proper form of a revolutionary organization was also a point of dispute. Bakunin enthusiastically created secret societies as catalysts for a revolutionary upsurge

www.marxists.org...

The end goal is the same: a fully mature communist society

In the end it's do we want our eggs scrambled or do we want them over easy? eggs are eggs.

reply to post by ANOK

Right wing libertarianism is authoritarianism so the term is being used incorrectly by the right. This is nothing new in politics as we saw it with the USSR, and Cuba, and China

Who do you think you are kidding with this kind of nonsense? Communism in Cuba, Russia, and China is not "right wing" anything. It is pure leftism. Fascism was not a "right wing" faction either. It was simply less left than the Leninist communist version.

Maybe our other poster was right when she said that labels can just confuse things.

You are not going to liberate people by subjecting them to any kind of communist ideology.

reply to post by ButterCookie


The fact of the matter is established peoples have been taking advantage of minorities which tend to be UN-established. This necessitates the need for liberal policies.

Anyone who would debate that withdrawing liberal programs at large without replacement would better America lacks understanding.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


I think that it's more of a matter of keeping America competitive, not one of oppressing minorities through handouts.

I think it's the GOP is more oppressive towards minorities. They appear to want to scrap many liberal programs that directly assist the "poor" in becoming a part of the middle class. Scrap minimum - wage, tons of federal college aid, etc. These seem to be high up on the GOP's list of priorities. At least when it comes to their rhetoric. I have trouble believing the higher ups in the GOP actually seriously want to cut back on much of those programs. And I doubt even less that they have any hope in actually succeeding in that goal.

I don't see how Republicans can believe any real person would buy the alleged fact that somehow giving financial assistance to those who are less well off than the rest of us is possibly oppression.

Originally posted by On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

 

I think that it's more of a matter of keeping America competitive, not one of oppressing minorities through handouts.

I think it's the GOP is more oppressive towards minorities. They appear to want to scrap many liberal programs that directly assist the "poor" in becoming a part of the middle class. Scrap minimum - wage, tons of federal college aid, etc. These seem to be high up on the GOP's list of priorities. At least when it comes to their rhetoric. I have trouble believing the higher ups in the GOP actually seriously want to cut back on much of those programs. And I doubt even less that they have any hope in actually succeeding in that goal.

I don't see how Republicans can believe any real person would buy the alleged fact that somehow giving financial assistance to those who are less well off than the rest of us is possibly oppression.

The GOP does not look to completely scrap liberal programs: they are looking to reduce them and set limitations on them. This leads to the enabling and motivation that recipients need to become self reliant and to appreciate hard work more. That appears to be wanting to truly help that person, rather than have them dependent on the system, where there is no incentive to gain employable skills or seek higher education.

The more a party wants to create dependent citizens, the more oppressive that party is. Also, what I find extremely harmful to minorities is the rewarding of having multiple children out of wedlock. This does nothing but cause harm to all involved: The mother will not be available for work as she may not be able to afford childcare, the father will likely be on child-support, in which he is jailed if he cannot afford to pay, and the children will definitely not be adequately taken care of, as there are already children the mother has that she cannot take care of alone.

* For example, a single mother will receive at least $200.00 EXTRA in food stamps for each additional child that she has out of wedlock, more cash benefits, and a larger Section 8 (free housing) voucher, with each new baby. If her current Section 8 voucher gives her a 3 br 2ba with 3 children, then she will receive a voucher for 4 bd 2 1/2 bath and more square footage for new children.

So in all actuality, the GOP wants to help create productive citizens, while the Democratic party would like to create lifelong dependency, which is harmful to the citizen.

Originally posted by On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

The fact of the matter is established peoples have been taking advantage of minorities which tend to be UN-established. This necessitates the need for liberal policies.

Anyone who would debate that withdrawing liberal programs at large without replacement would better America lacks understanding.

Exactly how and why do established people take advantage of minorities?

If anything, they help 'establish' a model way to live for anyone is disadvantage, and explain to them that this lifestyle is 'established' by hard work and solid education. Is not hard work and education more beneficial to the society than rewarding people who choose not to work, have multiple children that they cannot afford, and dropping out of school?

Originally posted by On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

 

I think that it's more of a matter of keeping America competitive, not one of oppressing minorities through handouts.

More competitive? Socialism thwarts competition through distribution of wealth.

How?

There no longer is a need for hard or harder work; there no longer is a need to work period, and there no longer is a need to seek higher education.

Liberal programs are designed to 'ensure that everyone lives equally'- no matter that citizen's input to society.

Example:You graduate high school and go to college to work in a field paying close to 6 figures. In order to do this, you sacrificed some of your social life and did not have any children that you could not afford. You are ow able to buy a beautiful home, costing around $2-300,00. All of your neighbors share in the same work ethic as you, keeping noise level down and keep the property beautiful.

Then, thanks to a 'program', a single mother of 5 (she had more children to get the beautiful home next to yours) moves in and thanks to your lucrative job, is able to stay home all day, perhaps have more children, and can indulge in drugs ( since no drug tests are required). She does not keep the property beautified.

Why? She has had to put nothing into the property.

She may want to stay up all night with parties or have kids outside all night making noise in the neighborhood.

Why? She doesn't have to be anywhere in the morning.

This is not the example for all people that enjoy the luxuries of Section 8. It just shows nice things are not appreciated if nothing was done to receive it.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
More competitive? Socialism thwarts competition through distribution of wealth.

More ignorance about what socialism is.

Socialism is not redistribution of wealth in the way you are insinuating.

It is a redistribution of wealth because workers become owners of their own work. So instead of the wealth made by those who do the producing (workers) going to private owners (surplus value, profit), it stays with the workers.

Why should a minority class be allowed to take the majority of the wealth that is created by the majority? Worker ownership would mean we would all be better off, but there would not be the massive rich poor divide, which BTW is getting wider.

WASHINGTON — Household incomes declined for the second straight year in 2011, while the earnings gap between rich and poor logged the largest annual increase since income inequality was first measured two decades ago, new data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows.

www.mcclatchydc.com...

What does this tell us? The capitalist class are making a killing while we lose jobs, financial power, rights, and social services.

reply to post by ButterCookie


So you created a stereotype in your head from two conversations with people you know?

Sounds stupid.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

So you created a stereotype in your head from two conversations with people you know?

Sounds stupid.

LOL.

No. My opinion on this matter stems from liberal ideology in general.

Attempt to debunk my arguments, please.

reply to post by ANOK


The rich getting richer has nothing to do with the poor. Not sure why liberal ideology teaches that.

Look at it this way: if you were rich, would you want a cap placed on your wealth?

You feel that people should only be allowed to make so much money, just because there is a poor population?

Bravo on teaching Socialism 101.