Obama's Power Grab to Gain Control of Private Property

UncleBuck said:
your manifesto gives me a headache.

have you considered a ghost writer?

rend pawl just fired his white supremacist ghost writer, so maybe you can swoop him up. not likely if he asks to be paid, but ya never know. he may just do it for charity.
Click to expand...

you are not that stupid.

you just ont like being called what you are, an authoritarian marxist who wants the government to rob everyone with more than you, and share their shit with the faithful (mostly yourself)
 
Dr Kynes said:
you are not that stupid.

you just ont like being called what you are, an authoritarian marxist who wants the government to rob everyone with more than you, and share their shit with the faithful (mostly yourself)
Click to expand...

i'm actually for the status quo for the most part, which is absurdly capitalist.

you can keep on lying about me, but i reserve the right to keep telling the truth about you.
 
Dr Kynes said:
so now you argue that Socialism is NOT authoritarian, and is NOT a lamentable necessity on the road to the Communist Utopia?

cuz you said that very thing not long ago

pretending the dictatorship of the proletariat (through their party bosses and apparatchiks of course) doesnt hold currency, and that without violent revolution you cannot have marxism is patently deceptive. marxism is a wonderfully amorphous thing, especially in the hands of lying chompskyites like yourself.

my (and Marx's) definitions have not changed a bit, only your narrative has changed.
Click to expand...


Marx was a mouth breathing fool just like you. He was not the only socialist who ever lived. Read my sig.

I have always argued that socialism is not synonymous with authoritarianism. You're just so fucking obsessed with Marx and spent so many months calling me a Marxist that you never paid attention. You're dumb.
 
Dr Kynes said:
the fact that hje compromised and sought Marxism through the electoral process and gradual demolishing of capitalism is WHY mussolini was drummed out of Marxism's inner circle.

when you adopt "democratic socialism" (which you have) and extol it's virtuse, you are adopting FASCISM

calling Fascism "Right Wing" is as retarded as calling Stalin "right wing"

the "right" is not authoritarian, the only siliarities between "the right wing" and fascism is NATIONALISM, but Marxism also exploits nationalism, which you would know if you understood Marxism.

the nascent socialist state must be defended from corrupting influences, and outside forces, until it can blossom into utopian communism.

the socialist and communist states must also spread the joys of "Scientific Marxism" to capitalist societies encouraging their proles to hurl their bodies at the barricades, while ensuring that counter-revolutionary thought doewsnt infiltrate from the evils outside the communist utopia.

thats Nationalism, Marx Style.

you really think nobody reads marx but the anointed?
or do you think once anybody reads that claptrap they will be convinced and join the herd?

Marxism is as weak, faulty and pointless as "Divine Right of Monarchy" or primitive tribalism.
Click to expand...

The whole spectrum is based on level of authority within social structures and hierarchies. Good god you have a hard on for Marx. Personally, I thought he was fatally flawed.
 
abandonconflict said:
Capitalism can not exist with out a state to protect private property. This fact is sufficient to prove my point.
Click to expand...

The fact you continue to repeat what Marx said about capitalism is one of the many reasons you get called a Marxist here. If you don't want to be called a Marxist, stop spewing his theories. Capitalism was around before any formal government, even back when private property was protected with sticks and stones. MY CAVE!! I'll trade you my bear rug for your daughter... You actually proved my point, not yours.

The state and capitalism are not anonymous... (bwahahaha, i crack myself up sometimes).
 
GOD HERE said:
Let me answer your dumb question for you. He leans toward being a free marketer. Hence the CENTER-RIGHT label that has been mentioned here multiple times by multiple people.
Click to expand...
Really? Obama leans toward being a free marketer? You're going to have to explain that, 'cause I'm not seeing it.
 
GOD HERE said:
e70cd106a50f3aaeb32b5e5419e685366ac45e558f139637f3043973a1d56baa.jpg
Click to expand...
Funny pictures aren't supporting your case either.
 
see4 said:
No, I gave up on you a long while ago. Your arguments are as weak as your premise. You have nothing to provide to a conversation except negativity and an attitude. So now I just mock your counterarguments.
Click to expand...
When have you ever done anything OTHER than mock, lie, and insult?
 
ginwilly said:
The fact you continue to repeat what Marx said about capitalism is one of the many reasons you get called a Marxist here. If you don't want to be called a Marxist, stop spewing his theories. Capitalism was around before any formal government, even back when private property was protected with sticks and stones. MY CAVE!! I'll trade you my bear rug for your daughter... You actually proved my point, not yours.

The state and capitalism are not anonymous... (bwahahaha, i crack myself up sometimes).
Click to expand...

Socialism and free market are not antonymous which makes your question that you begged me to answer for several pages a false dichotomy. Just because Marx said something does not make it false nor does it make one a marxist for acknowledging this fact.

You need to evolve from the neck up.
 
GOD HERE said:
The whole spectrum is based on level of authority within social structures and hierarchies. Good god you have a hard on for Marx. Personally, I thought he was fatally flawed.
Click to expand...

not, it is not.

the "right wing" and left wing are phrases from the french revolution, those on the right sought a return to traditional french governance, and a restoration of the monarchy, while the left demanded the dictatorship of the mob.

if the right had been victorious, the french would have adopted a constitutional monarchy, like england's (modified republic with a ceremonial monarch)

the left won, ushering in La Grand Terruer, with Robespierre and Madame Guillotine running the show, with a shower of blood and a bumper crop of severed heads to show for it.


the french populace began to long for the good old days when they were just starving, which ushered in the rise of napoleon, after the little general was banished to elba, the incompetence of the new republican government led to the return of napoleon one more time, and the french have been trying to get their system right ever since, with limited success. (5 constitutions since their revolution, the latest one being adopted in 1958)
 
abandonconflict said:
Socialism and free market are not antonymous which makes your question that you begged me to answer for several pages a false dichotomy. Just because Marx said something does not make it false nor does it make one a marxist for acknowledging this fact.

You need to evolve from the neck up.
Click to expand...

you are surprisingly correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

socialism collectivism and even communism can happily co-exist inside a capitalist constitutional republic (or any largely free society founded on the principles of The Enlightenment)

capitalism, freedom and liberty CANNOT exist in any meaningful form under Marxism

the words are not antonymous, (antonyms, words which are opposites) but they are antagonistic.

when authoritarian collectivism expands, liberty and capitalism shrink, when capitalism and liberty expand, authoritarian collectivism retracts.

the only parts of classical Marxism you seem to reject are the violent revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and the Socialist Authoritarian State, while all the other assumptions, ideals and methodologies remain intact.

Mussolini rejected violent revolution, in favour of the democratic process, but DID embrace The Authoritarian Socialist State, and dictatorship (participation of the proletariat may vary) within the context of the Marxist Long View and the promise **cough cough** Bullshit! **cough cough** of an eventual Communist Utopia.

modern "Democratic Socialists" reject the Authoritarian Socialist state AND violent revolution, but celebrates the dictatorship of the proletariat through the electoral process and voting themselves the right to pick another man's pocket.

"Democratic Socialism" is simply Type 2 Marxism, with a late in life onset, caused by poor intellectual diet and excess consumption of sugary political treats like progressive tax rates, social welfare programs, and yes, socialized medicine. with careful control through medication and minor changes in diet, the patient can live a long healthy life without having his foot chopped off or slipping into a delusional state.

im not physician, but i think you should have yourself checked out.
 
Dr Kynes said:
you are surprisingly correct, but for all the wrong reasons.

socialism collectivism and even communism can happily co-exist inside a capitalist constitutional republic (or any largely free society founded on the principles of The Enlightenment)

capitalism, freedom and liberty CANNOT exist in any meaningful form under Marxism

the words are not antonymous, (antonyms, words which are opposites) but they are antagonistic.

when authoritarian collectivism expands, liberty and capitalism shrink, when capitalism and liberty expand, authoritarian collectivism retracts.

the only parts of classical Marxism you seem to reject are the violent revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat, and the Socialist Authoritarian State, while all the other assumptions, ideals and methodologies remain intact.

Mussolini rejected violent revolution, in favour of the democratic process, but DID embrace The Authoritarian Socialist State, and dictatorship (participation of the proletariat may vary) within the context of the Marxist Long View and the promise **cough cough** Bullshit! **cough cough** of an eventual Communist Utopia.

modern "Democratic Socialists" reject the Authoritarian Socialist state AND violent revolution, but celebrates the dictatorship of the proletariat through the electoral process and voting themselves the right to pick another man's pocket.

"Democratic Socialism" is simply Type 2 Marxism, with a late in life onset, caused by poor intellectual diet and excess consumption of sugary political treats like progressive tax rates, social welfare programs, and yes, socialized medicine. with careful control through medication and minor changes in diet, the patient can live a long healthy life without having his foot chopped off or slipping into a delusional state.

im not physician, but i think you should have yourself checked out.
Click to expand...

Fascism is a form of capitalism hence the privatization. Everything you just said is BS because your head is so far up Marx's and Mussolini's asses that words lose all meaning when you use them. Nobody expects much from a Republican such as you.
 
abandonconflict said:
Fascism is a form of capitalism hence the privatization. Everything you just said is BS because your head is so far up Marx's and Mussolini's asses that words lose all meaning when you use them. Nobody expects much from a Republican such as you.
Click to expand...

Vladimir Lenin also engaged in "privatization" when he discovered that the proles couldnt manage their business without party bosses running the show from the top down, and nobody will run a business or a farm out of charity, so they needed an incentive. (ownership of a portion of the product, or, Profit.)

was Comrade Lenin no longer a marxist? or was he simply accepting the reality of the situation, despite the failure of Marx's unfounded beliefs?

Authoritarian Marxism has proven to be a poor substitute for self-interest, so it had to be tempered with a healthy dose of evil capitalism just to keep the wheels turning.

Stalin re-structured Lenin's re-structuring by issuing sweeping mandates and sending forth "Political Officers" to sniff out disloyalty, and starving half the country to death, while he and his apparatchiks lived comfortably in a manner the Tsars would have recognized.

China is currently undergoing a similar re-structuring, but they seem to be casting off Marxism with a possibility of ultimate rejection of this failed experiment.

Edit: and i am proud to be a believer in the Republic, it is the best solution yet tried, and it has served humanity well, as long as it remains a Republic and doesnt get eroded into Imperial Dictatorship (rome), or devolve into anarchy (france) , or slouch into Marxism (scanidnavia).
 
abandonconflict said:
Fascism is a form of capitalism hence the privatization. Everything you just said is BS because your head is so far up Marx's and Mussolini's asses that words lose all meaning when you use them. Nobody expects much from a Republican such as you.
Click to expand...

One thing I've noticed is Kynes gives you real world examples from history to back up his reality while you insist the academia theory is reality. You disregard historical practice of your theories while embracing those same theories spouted by someone else.
 
Dr Kynes said:
Vladimir Lenin also engaged in "privatization" when he discovered that the proles couldnt manage their business without party bosses running the show from the top down, and nobody will run a business or a farm out of charity, so they needed an incentive. (ownership of a portion of the product, or, Profit.)

was Comrade Lenin no longer a marxist? or was he simply accepting the reality of the situation, despite the failure of Marx's unfounded beliefs?

Authoritarian Marxism has proven to be a poor substitute for self-interest, so it had to be tempered with a healthy dose of evil capitalism just to keep the wheels turning.

Stalin re-structured Lenin's re-structuring by issuing sweeping mandates and sending forth...
Click to expand...

You are so obsessed with Marx. I am not talking about that shit at all. I have to repeat this in every post because you are such a Marxist. The Soviet myth has done so much damage.

"But on the other hand it was of the utmost importance to me that people in western Europe should see the Soviet régime for what it really was. Since 1930 I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism. On the contrary, I was struck by clear signs of its transformation into a hierarchical society, in which the rulers have no more reason to give up their power than any other ruling class." -George Orwell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Trump hates our children.
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Paul Drake
Paul Drake
hanimmal
Biden's Cabinet and administration picks.
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
schuylaar
S
hanimmal
Biden nominates Deb Haaland to be first Native American to serve as interior secretary.
Replies
11
Views
832
hanimmal
hanimmal
G
Politics Federally Funded Journal Exposes How Marijuana Prohibition Puts Consumers At Risk
Replies
0
Views
297
gb123
G
squarepush3r
Furloughed Federal Employees are Still Paid More Than You
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
9K
doublejj
doublejj
Back
Top