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.
i am 65 yrs old and have been a leftist since i opposed the Vietnam war at 15 yrs old...
i have never been on George Soros mailing list and never read a thing by him...
i can tell you about the koch brothers family and their connection to the John Birch Society and the funding of that "grassroots" rightwing tea party....
i personally get tired of the qanon types and their harping on and on about conspiracy's within the democratic party..
and the rightwing types never talk about the thousands of years of rich/wealthy people who predated the clintons, etc
unless they mention old medieval antisemetic jewish baby eaters and sexual rings, which drives some moderate rightwingers away
No it's not really a Marxist revolution. It is the ultra rich seizing control of the government so they can get richer. Mark Zuckerberg does not care about poor people. He just wanted to stop Trump because Trump wanted to take him down along with that Twitter guy.
A Marxist society would have no Zuckerbergs.
Is it really that important to use Facebook? I've never used it. I don't see the point.
But that -- the highlighted -- does not mean there are no classes in a Marxist/communist society.
Money is fungible and in a capitalist society, the more money the better off you are. You can have more people do what you want and faster than normal.
But if in a society where there is no or little money, is it possible to be in a higher class than others? Absolutely. Political power may not be as fungible as printed money and coins, but you can get more people do what you want and faster than normal just as if you paid them with printed money or stock certificates. That put you in a higher class. In a Marxist/communist society, the Bezos and the Zuckerbergs do not need printed money because they would have the same abundance of the analogous of printed money.
Mao and Stalin were financially poor compare to Bezos and Zuckerberg, but Mao and Stalin had much more power and the best kind -- raw power.
As there's really no old school Republican conservatives left. I say let's all band together and work to destroy both of today's useless major parties and create a system that doesn't try to sell the BS that there's only two possible solutions to every problem.
Very simple for us to agree. One way is to simply define what "Marxist" means on City-Data. Then we would likely agree. What Marxism is in theory is different from what some countries have claimed to follow. Plenty of varieties there.
Marx was a privileged, spoiled brat (as are most leftists as children) who grew up to be a lazy slob leeching off his family inheritances and friends, and who wrote a bunch of gibberish in an attempt to disguise what he and 99.9% of "marxist revolutionaries" are interested in: controlling others, confiscating their assets, time, labor, and eliminating those who do not agree with them or will not comply.
Marx's true agenda and mindset is better reflected in the writings of Nechayev, who boiled it all down to its essence and key ingredients very well. And in all cases so far from world history, an implementation of these satanic principles (yes, when one understands them, there is no other better-suited descriptor) have resulted in the most horrendous genocides in all of human history. Yet we here in the good ol' U S of A want to try one more time, arrogantly thinking our October Revolution will result in anything other than despair, destitution, and death. And yet another genocide.
- Military/ federal workforce being purged due to mandates
- Constitutionalists valuing freedom, resisting vax continuing to be portrayed as the enemy
- Green New Deal being implemented
- Radical leftist social agenda being implemented and children successfully being indoctrinated by them
- Election system comprimised
- Extreme partisan censorship
- All major news networks complicit
Yup. It started with the infiltration of the education system by the marxists/communists. It is all following a plan.
Very simple for us to agree. One way is to simply define what "Marxist" means on City-Data. Then we would likely agree. What Marxism is in theory is different from what some countries have claimed to follow. Plenty of varieties there.
It's like I am talking about an ideal point and someone objects, saying the mark I made on the blackboard is a few millimeters in size, and proceed to accuses me of believing in unicorns and Santa Claus.
That -- the highlighted -- is true.
There is a saying in engineering: In Theory, there is no difference between Theory and Practice, in Practice, there is.
Marx said: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
To date, there is only society where Marxism was successfully applied: the Monastery, which includes the Nunnery.
The difference in Applied Marxism between the Monastery and all the failed varieties is that members of the Monastery are volunteers. So if you believe in Marxism but do not want to deal with trying to convince people to voluntarily give up other ideologies, what next? Authoritarianism.
People are not averse to new ideas. But how do we adopt new ideas? Experimentation, of course. Experimentation is supposed to be small scale or regional. Adoption is global. In engineering, the word 'global' does not mean literally the planet but to mean throughout the entire system.
Applied Marxism was not regional as in a monastery-like society but global, meaning done throughout the country. Then Applied Marxism was forcibly spread from one country to another. Finally, Applied Marxism had about 100 yrs of existence.
People are not averse to new ideas. But if the new idea failed in Experimentation, then even though it maybe unfair to associate the Theory to the failure, that is the natural effect of human nature, especially when the Theory demands drastic changes to lifestyle.
If Applied Marxism seemingly always ended up in Authoritarianism, or worse Totalitarianism, over 100 yrs and in multiple countries, then is there a point in trying to differentiate between Theoretical Marxism and Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism?
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.
