User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: I found a picture of a marxist

  1. #16
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183967
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    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.
    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.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to jsanford108 For Your Post:

    patrick jane (April 11th, 2018)

  3. #17
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    8,903
    Thanks
    1,085
    Thanked 1,301 Times in 980 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    499558
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    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.
    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.

    All liberals are fascists.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  4. #18
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144639
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ffreeloader For Your Post:

    jsanford108 (April 11th, 2018),patrick jane (April 11th, 2018)

  6. #19
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144639
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.

    All liberals are fascists.
    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.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ffreeloader For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (April 11th, 2018),patrick jane (April 11th, 2018)

  8. #20
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    1,293
    Thanks
    1,207
    Thanked 428 Times in 334 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    183967
    Quote Originally Posted by ffreeloader View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to jsanford108 For Your Post:

    patrick jane (April 11th, 2018)

  10. #21
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    646
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 366 Times in 245 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    144639
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    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.
    I know what you're talking about. There are people who adopt all the political goals of marxism without understanding where they come from. Those people are just taken in by the sophistry and do not understand what they are backing, but that makes them no less dangerous to liberty. They still push the agenda. They still vote the agenda. They are marxists that just don't know they're marxists yet.

    The word "liberal" was co-opted a long time ago. So was the word "progressive". Both have become, in the popular venacular, to stand for exactly the opposite of what they mean. Marxism takes us back to the days of peons and serfdom. It's regressive. LIberal used to mean openhanded, generous, tolerant, and to stand, politically, for as little government regulation as possible with as much personal liberty as possible. Now it stands for regression as the "liberals" want to take us back to the days fuedalism.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to ffreeloader For Your Post:

    patrick jane (April 12th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us