APP - Marxism - What is it really?

It's always the same thing. It'll be "better this time" because people will vote for it... :rolleyes: ....

Just need the "right leaders" this time. That will make it work.
 
Misogyny is a major factor of the democrat party - America's Marxist party. From attacking women's sports, giving scholarships aimed at women to men, letting men into women's locker rooms, to a Supreme Court Justice who can't define what a woman is, the party is openly hostile to women.

A myth was created that democrats support women, they never did, democrats support abortion, not women. Most victims of abortion are female.

So where did the disdain for women come from? Marx explains;

{The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and,naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. }

Here we see that Marx wanted to cast all women into a Harem for the pleasure of party members. This a century and a half before democrats anointed Jeffrey Epstein as undisputed leader of the party, with Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Hakeem Jeffries, Mark Zuckerberg, Barack Obama, and even Katie Couric bending the knee to king Jeff.

Marx envisioned the goal, the party enabled it.

{Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus,at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.}

(pg. 46-47)
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Let's see your evidence? Let's see the strong stand the party has taken against the open Marxists who have gained control of the party?



Why would the terrorist wing of the democrat party, that was defeated and destroyed in 1969 have anything to do with Trump?

Again - this is APP, leave the emotional Trump hatred and usual tantrums downstairs.



Demonstrably false.

{
An early September Gallup poll on Americans’ perception of capitalism and socialism shows the latter is now heavily preferred by Democrats. In 2010, 50 percent of Democrats viewed socialism favorably; today, 66 percent do.


In just 15 years, the percentage of Democrats viewing socialism favorably has gone from half to almost two-thirds. In contrast, over the same period, the percentage of Democrats who at least view capitalism “favorably” has fallen from a bare majority of 51 percent to just 42 percent.

Today’s poll results remove any ambiguity about a May 2019 Gallup poll that found 74 percent of Democrats would support a socialist for president as their party’s nominee.}





As already demonstrated in this thread, Marx is the architect of present democrat party. Please review post #4 and post #5



So you are not capable of reasoned debate. Ignorance and ad hom are the tools of the left, you lack actual knowledge and cannot debate the subject or the material.
Click to expand...
Socialism is not Marxism.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Communism in relation to the American Democratic Party:

Marx writes further;
{The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere are present the interests of the movement as a whole.}

Here we get to the meat that insofar as the perspective of the democrat party in America, they are we and we are them. That is, as Marx states there is no distinction between Communist and democrat, the Communists do not separate themselves from the left as a whole, but essentially infest any and all left leaning causes and parties. In America this is primarily the democrat party. This heralds back to those such as Mamdani, AOC, Tlaib, Gavin Newson, et al. Per Marxist doctrine, these are not infiltrators who have seized control of the party, but in fact the very definition of the party. The democrat party in inseparable from communism as Marx has molded the proletarian movement of the party.
Click to expand...
Show me the words where Marx said Marxism is the same as the Democrats in 2026?
 
Jarod said:
It’s simply not, one is a form of government the other is an economic theory.
Click to expand...
Neither Socialism nor Marxism (Communism) is a form of government per se. They are both very similar economic theories. In terms of government, Communism needs a dictatorship to work, while Socialism just needs a big, intrusive, government to do so.
 
Jarod said:
Lets start with your premise, in what way has the rise of Mamdani and Cortez resulted in defining the Democratic party as Marxist? I am interested in your answer. I see no element of Marxism in their positions, but I have not studied them, maybe you can educate me on it.

How is the "Democratic Party" associated with "Critical Race Theory?"

Define Marxism with something other than the opening line of Marx's manifesto, because the quoted portion dose not really define the ideology, it simply describes a view on historical friction among societal classes. It does not take a side or suggest a solution. This is does not give us a basis for discussion.
Click to expand...
By raising a starting point for a useful discussion you've now obviously lost him.
 
  • Democratic Socialism: Advocates for a political democracy alongside a socially owned economy. Production is controlled collectively by the public or workers, rather than by a capitalist class. [1, 2, 3]
  • Social Democracy: Operates within a capitalist, free-market system. Instead of replacing private ownership, it utilizes high taxation and a robust welfare state to heavily redistribute wealth and secure public services. [1, 2, 3]

  • Marxism-Leninism: A revolutionary, centralized form of socialism. It advocates for a vanguard party to lead the proletariat, eventually transitioning to a completely state-controlled, planned economy. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Libertarian Socialism / Anarchism: Rejects both state authority and capitalist hierarchies. It advocates for decentralized,
  • self-managed worker cooperatives and voluntary associations. [1, 2]
  • Market Socialism: A system where the means of production are publicly or cooperatively owned, but production and pricing are determined through market forces rather than central government planning. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • Syndicalism: A working-class movement that proposes replacing the state and corporate power with decentralized, grassroots labor unions and worker syndicates. [1, 2]
 
Guno צְבִי said:
  • Social Democracy: Operates within a capitalist, free-market system. Instead of replacing private ownership, it utilizes high taxation and a robust welfare state to heavily redistribute wealth and secure public services. [1, 2, 3]
Click to expand...


This one is the one that Jarod consistently conflates with Socialism... This is a form of regulated and taxed capitalism, not socialism.
 
Jarod said:
This is the problem with Socialism, and why for a modern nation to be successful we need a balance of Capitalism and Socialism.
Click to expand...
There is no need for any socialism component. Socialism = problems. Socialism = bogus economics. Socialism = denial of human nature.

Jarod said:
This is the general friction between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of economics,
Click to expand...
Correct. Republicans generally adhere to sound economics and Democrats generally oppose sound economics.

Jarod said:
no Nation in existence is Pure Capitalist or Socialist.
Click to expand...
All countries have socialism infections, so all countries have problems.

Jarod said:
On social issues, I am a libertarian.
Click to expand...
On all issues, you are a Marxist.

Jarod said:
On economic issues, I believe we need more socialism in the mix
Click to expand...
Of course you do.

Jarod said:
to keep the wealthy from taking to much power
Click to expand...
The Marxist's creed.

Jarod said:
and controlling to many people
Click to expand...
You HATE job-creators; I get it.

Jarod said:
I do not like that the classes are so solidified.
Click to expand...
There aren't any such things as "classes". You have to be a moron to think that people come with little HTML tags indicating one's "class."

Only Marxists are this stupid.
 
Damocles said:
This one is the one that Jarod consistently conflates with Socialism... This is a form of regulated and taxed capitalism, not socialism.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. When the government fully controls the supply-demand curve, you have socialism. Referring to socialism as "regulated capitalism" is simply playing word games.
 
Damocles said:
This one is the one that Jarod consistently conflates with Socialism... This is a form of regulated and taxed capitalism, not socialism.
Click to expand...
Call it whatever makes you feel good about it, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are mistaken. When the government fully controls the supply-demand curve, you have socialism. Referring to socialism as "regulated capitalism" is simply playing word games.
Click to expand...
Taxation and welfare does not "fully control the supply-demand curve"... Also, if they do that, control the supply-demand curve, without taking control of the companies it is Fascistic Economics not Socialism. In Fascistic Economic systems the government, through bureaucratic committees, tells the company what kind of widget and how many to make, though it is still privately owned. Taxes and welfare do not do that. Basically Fascism is socialism without government ownership. Cartels control what the company makes, how much they pay, how many they hire, how many items they make, and where they send it and what they charge.... Fascism, not socialism.

Taxes and Welfare doesn't do any of that. High taxes and big welfare are articles of capitalism. The divide in the US isn't between socialism and capitalism, it is whether or not the safety net (welfare) should be a hammock.
 
Jarod said:
Call it whatever makes you feel good about it, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Click to expand...
Hence you calling it what makes you feel good rather than what it is. Calling a rock a flyswatter might make you feel good, but it doesn't make it a doorknob.

Leftists trying to water down the language so that folks do not understand that "socialism" is what it actually is, that is simply the left "guiding" the conversation so that when they do introduce actual socialism, folks will think it simply means massive welfare hammocks even though they are taking ownership of companies and introducing a form of government that has become totalitarian and has failed as an economic system in every single attempt.

I am not trying to make anyone "feel good" I am simply telling folks what the words actually mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top