Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The extreme left would be Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al.
They were very pro-death penalty.
Even limiting it to this country, well, there's the following:
"In 1904, the [U.S.] Socialist Party executive sent the following response to the Second International Executive which had inquired about the issue of Ku Klux Klan lynching: The Socialist Party points out the fact that nothing less than the abolition of the capitalist system and the substitution of the Socialist system can provide conditions under which the hunger maniacs, kleptomaniacs, sexual maniacs and all other offensive and now lynchable human degenerates will cease to be begotten or produced." (Kipnis, Ira. The American Socialist Movement: 1897-1912, Monthly Review Press, 1952, p. 132.)
Liberals tend to oppose the DP, not the "extreme left."
I find it interesting that when the "extreme left" was mentioned - that the OP became defensive.
What real discussion can exist with someone who makes wildly outlandish and false claims such as "extreme lefties" support killing people. Unless you're discussing dictators and mass genocide, but then the attitude of your posts indicates you were directing that statement at liberals.
I'm not sure how Stalin is relevant to this discussion.
Do you disagree that people on the extreme left have killed many people?
Also - why so touchy about the subject? Your not part of the extreme left - are you?
Also - why so touchy about the subject? Your not part of the extreme left - are you?
As a liberal who is as fearful of the ultra left as I am of the ultra right, I couldn't agree with you more. When it comes to dealing out justice I find both ends of the political spectrum to grossly lacking.
Right now there's a measure in California to end the death penalty. I do not support it. I believe in Capital Punishment (which will surprise the right-wingers who like to call me a leftist even though my vote always goes to Libertarian candidates) not as a deterrant, but as a cleanser of filth and scum.
I believe the way it's used for murder is fine.
Here's what I think we should do to expand it:
Death penalty to anyone who violently assaults a child under 13 in any way, whether it's sexual or not.
Death penalty to anyone who violently rapes anyone, including prison rapes.
Death penalty to anyone convicted of a violent crime more than once.
Death penalty to anyone convicted of a violent crime coupled with a mentall illness or total lack of remorse.
I can keep going on, but you get the point. People (not just men, though it's usually middle-aged white men) who violently sexually assault a child clearly have no moral compass or self-control and they almost always graduate to murder. Imagine how much better off we'd be without those scumbuckets.
Interesting because I'm 100% against the death penalty despite my right-wing/libertarian leaning reputation. I just cannot support irreversable punishments no matter how awful the crime. On that note, I am also pro-life and anti-war.
Communism is the strictly theoretical system imagined by Karl Marx in which all of society, all of economics and all politics are combined into one, perfect, classless, automatic, government-less system based on common ownership of all economic means of production, and social sameness. To achieve this utopian dream, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels wrote the "Communist Manifesto" to inspire violent revolution everywhere.
Marxist theory requires this process to involve revolutionary overthrow of the Bourgeoisie, followed by a preparatory stage of Socialism alternatively called "The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat." Pure Communism, the end goal of Marxist Socialism, would be the theoretical state of "statelessness" in which an un-governed, classless society lives in perfect order, and all history has stopped.
Communism, as such, does not exist, has never existed, and cannot exist. However, in common usage, the word Communism has come to be near synonymous with the ongoing movements of Marxism and Socialism that seek to establish it.
Throughout history all nations that ever called themselves Communist were in fact Socialist, and Socialism is the antithesis of representative government and a free citizenry. No people who ever came under Socialism via war, revolution or other violence ever got out from under it by their own actions.
While Communism does not in fact exist, Socialism does exist. All governments that have ever called themselves Communist are (or were) in reality Socialist.
I doubt that the poster in question has ever studied Marx - they won't understand what you are saying unless they do.
For simplicity and for propaganda purposes - they are called "communist" nations - but you are correct that they aren't.
Communism takes a long time to develop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
