I found a picture of a marxist
- Thread starter Gary K
- Start date
I get mine fro Pinterest mostly now. Search for what you want and it's free, also Google images.
Ffreeloader, you're a typical American conservative, which means you don't even know what Marxism is, or socialism or communism . You automatically assume that liberals and especially liberal politicians, are "socialists, Marxists and communists .
Remember - liberals are not communists and communists are not liberals !
Remember - liberals are not communists and communists are not liberals !
LOL. Yeah, I've only spent more than a decade studying collectivism, libertarianism, and conservativism. Today's so-called liberals/progressives are socialists/communists/fascists as all three ideologies are collectivist at heart. They all promote government as the solution to everything. The classical liberal though is a horse of another color. You have to go back to Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, Frederic Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, etc... to understand classical liberalism and I've also read them quite extensively. Today's so-called liberals hate what they taught. I also have a pretty extensive collection of the writings of the US founding fathers. I have a library of close to 3000 ebooks and probably at least 1 out of 5 of them are on politics and/or economics. Very few people have spent the time educating themselves on these subjects that I have.
Are we to assume, you're NOT an American citizen?
jsanford108
New member
Correct. Liberals are not communists, and communists are not liberals. Communists are leftists. Communism, socialism, and Marxism is fascist, immoral, etc.
Show me a so-called "liberal" agenda that does not have it's roots in marxism. The so-called "liberals" all want the government to be the solution to the ills of society. California is a hotbed of so-called liberalism. Look at what it does. Everything the state does there is marxist ideology driven. They, the democrats, just introduced a bill in their legislature to kill all but state endorsed points of view on any website hosted in California. That's marxist. That's what we see in all the communist countries. Government control of media. Look at the so-called liberals in Congress. What are they pushing? Open borders. That's a George Soros driven agenda, and he is an avowed marxist. Look at the financial agenda of the rino republicans and the democrats. They have spent this nation into bankruptcy. Why? Because they have followed Keynesian economics and that is adopted in every communist country in the world. I could keep on going tracing the roots of the so-called liberal agenda to marxism, but I've shown enough here to make my point.
One more connection. The so-called liberals all push for income redistribution. California is talking about implementing universal income. Look at Obama's statements on income redistribution. This is all purely marxist in origin. It is standard marxist doctrine and it is pushed by all so--called liberals. They are not liberals. They are marxists.
The fact that you can't tell what the source of an agenda is says you don't understand what is happening around you.
jsanford108
New member
You misunderstand my terminology, which I would argue is the denotation of each word, absent of connotations.
A communist is a socialist. Socialists are communists. Liberals can end up being communists and socialists, communists and socialists are not liberals. Now, communists and socialists tend to be leftists, and vise versa.
Leftists and liberals are not synonymous. Liberals live by ideologies, seemingly ignorant of reality. Liberals are not physically forceful, unlike leftists. A liberal has this idea of "live and let live," while pushing their ideas as being best for the common good, absent of reality. A leftist forcibly pushes their ideas, with an idea of "live as we do or die."
I am not saying that liberals do not have socialist concepts as part of their ideology; that is not the case. Liberals often are in favor of socialist ideas, however, when it comes to infringing on the rights of others, they tend to back off. A liberal wants free speech. A leftist does not. A liberal wants ethic unity. A leftist does not. A leftists wants freedom of press. A leftist does not. Do you see the difference?
I understand the agenda of the Left. I understand the agenda of the liberals. The two are not the same. You yourself even agree with me ("This is all purely marxist in origin. It is standard marxist doctrine and it is pushed by all so--called liberals. They are not liberals. They are marxists."), yet somehow you have projected this ignorance upon me, regarding classifications. You in that very quote acknowledge that the marxists are calling themselves liberals, which indicates that on some level, you realize they are not. I believe that you are conflating liberals and leftists (communists, socialists, ect) into the same category, when their ideologies do not match up, spare a few concepts and ideas. You then projected an ignorance of terminology and reality onto me, while contradicting the very conflation that you began with.
In closing, everything you stated regarding agenda is true, for the left. Unfortunately, it seems that political spectrum, as evidenced by even your quick condescension, is divided into two groups, both of which deny anyone the ability to be moderate: the Left and the Right. If one disagrees with the main platform, one is immediately called ignorant and cast out into the abyss; rather than engaged with in open dialogue regarding their views/statements.
genuineoriginal
New member
Fascism
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
All liberals are fascists.
When Marx and Engels prepared their sophistry they gave thought to how they could attract the greatest number of followers. As a consequence marxism, according to Marx himself, has two ways by which it can come to power. One is by violent revolution. The other is through peaceful means. Thus, you will find marxists who advocate violent means of change and marxists who push non-violent means of change. They both agree, however, on the endpoint. Their political agendas are the same. It's the means by which to achieve that agenda on which they differ. One group follows Marx's advocacy of violent change. The other group follows Marx's idea that socialism would come about peacefully. Both ideas are in his writings. The ideas appeal to different temperaments, different ways of thinking about how to achieve the same objectives. But both groups are marxists. Make no mistake about it. The so-called liberals who advocate marxist ideas but by peaceful means rather than violent ones are still marxists. They are two different sides of the same coin.
There is no basic difference betwen socialism, communism, and fascism. They are just three different ways of expressing the same idea. The differences are cosmetic, not substantive. One of the big so-called differences between the three is said to be ownership of business. It is a distinction without meaning. As long as the government controls a business who cares who owns it? For all intents and purposes whoever controls it owns it. If a nominal business owner cannot run his own business by his own ideas he is nothing more than a puppet for the real owner, the one who controls his business decisions which in all three forms of collectivism is the government. The owner, in reality, becomes nothing more than middle management.
The rest of the differences are no greater than that one. They are all distinctions without meaning.
jsanford108
New member
I agree. Just pointing it out.
I think that liberals (the real ones) are just a breadth away from being marxists (the so-called liberals). And I think that your analysis above is spot on.