AOC Is A Communist

[Rigby5]

Those countries are also not melting pots. They have very little diversity in terms of race and culture. As usual, you and your ilk are vying for an unattainable Utopia.

Not really.
UI agree it is much easier in a mono-culture, but the US could make everything much more affordable by doing things like socialized mass transit, health care, housing, higher education, public cafeterias, etc. The profit motive is very inefficient and easily used to extort unnecessary profits that harm society.

 

[Rigby5]

I guess you missed the OP where she is extremely closely tied with the head of the communist party in New York.

Yes, but you know nothing about communism in general, much less the CP of NY in particular.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL. That's where you are brainwashed.

Explain it to Lincoln

 

[initforme]

Since she is one person who has zero effect on the nation, it's safe to say capitalism is alive and as well as ever. No sleep to lose on this.

 

[Rigby5]

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's accomplishments while in Congress:

Maybe a good thing.
We need the feds to do a whole lot less, like no more wars, no BATF, no DEA, etc.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Anyone who implies communism means any amount of dictatorship at all, is just lying.

I understand you are mostly talking about what Marx & Engels referred to as “primitive communism,” but you are not being honest here.

While Marx also spoke about a future (utopian) highest stage of communism where the state itself disappeared, he also clearly said that getting there would require that the working class, organized by a “communist party,” would first have to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Indeed, he said this was one of the main beliefs that distinguished “communists” from various forms of non-revolutionary democratic, reformist or utopian socialists.

In my opinion, old Marxist definitions or mere empty or nostalgic use of “names” should not be the decisive factor in discussing the nature of modern political groups.

Many so-called “communist parties” today explicitly oppose any notion of establishing a dictatorship (and many “capitalist” parties or groups are fully capable of openly supporting dictatorship). After breaking with the USSR, “Euro-communism” was mostly a reformist and democratic movement of many such parties. In different regions like China, South America, South Africa or Russia, the “communist,” “socialist” and even “social democratic” monikers have different cultural resonance than they do in the U.S.A. — though in general “communists” are widely despised today by serious democrats almost everywhere.

For a very long time the “CPUSA” has not been a revolutionary communist party. I would argue that the self-described “Leninist” Steve Bannon is far more “revolutionary” and “pro-dictatorship” than today’s reformist CP. In actual fact, many U.S. rightwing ultra-nationalist MAGA extremists have adopted and distorted many of the old critiques of the U.S. “Establishment” that leftists, particular “infantile leftists,” once put forward.

For those interested in history, it might be useful to note that even Karl Marx and F. Engels at one point thought that socialism might arise in very democratic and advanced societies through voting (they was talking about the U.S. then) without revolution.

In general “Marxism” uniquely concentrated many new ways to look at and criticize the capitalist world of the late 19th century, but of course it turned out to be a failed ideology — “a God that failed” — and trying to put it into practice by establishing some kind of “dictatorship of the masses” led to many horrors.

 

[GMCGeneral]

AOC is a Democratic Socialist who believes Government should do more for We the People

Same old shit, different flies. Government is NOT the end all be all, moron.

 

[rightwinger]

Same old shit, different flies. Government is NOT the end all be all, moron.

Not the end all…….But they can do more for We the People

 

[Independent thinker]

I'm not against the set up, I'm just saying republicans are hypocrites when they call AOC a communist yet they support socialism for corporations.

It's not socialism for corporations, it's actually the exact opposite. Corporations are helping lighten the load of the socialist democrats by actually paying people to work instead the left paying them 100% to not work.

 

[Independent thinker]

Yes, but you know nothing about communism in general, much less the CP of NY in particular.

I know AOC is proven to be an associate of someone very heavily into communism. Apples don't fall far from the tree.

 

[Independent thinker]

Explain it to Lincoln

Lincoln who? If you are referring to Abraham Lincoln then you must not have heard that he was assassinated about 160 years ago.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

As the preamble to our Constitution explicitly states …

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The very purpose of government here is thus conceived, in part, as promoting the general welfare.

[N.B. This abstract formulation of the very purpose of modern government is copied or adapted in most Constitutions throughout the world.]

 

[SeaMajor7]

The ice axe is always wielded by capitalists, not Marxists.
For example, Stalin was not a Marxist in any way.
He was a bank robber, which is about as capitalist as one can get.

Notice how the US was an ally of Russia until Stalin died, and only then did Russia become the "bad guy".

Swim to Cuba.

 

[Rumpole]

It's not socialism for corporations, it's actually the exact opposite. Corporations are helping lighten the load of the socialist democrats by actually paying people to work instead the left paying them 100% to not work.

Quit lying. No one is paying anyone 'not to work'. Hell, my brother, disabled from a TBI, it took him 3 months to qualify for SSI and even then it is not enough to live, so cut the crap.

Republicans, each and every day of the week for the last 100 years have called Democratic social programs as 'socialist'.

So, please do the following:

Either.......

1. Stop calling Democrats socialists OR
2. Start calling Republicans socialists.

It's one or the other....

You can't have it both ways.

 

[toobfreak]

But we already knew that, didn't we? Birds of a feather flock together.

I'm just trying to get my head around how the United States even ALLOWS a communist party within its borders in the first place?

We spent 100 years combating and trying to destroy communism around the world only to permit it on our own soil?

HOW STUPID IS THAT?

 

[GMCGeneral]

Not the end all…….But they can do more for We the People

Not their job to be the big daddy.

 

[DBA]

Not really.
UI agree it is much easier in a mono-culture, but the US could make everything much more affordable by doing things like socialized mass transit, health care, housing, higher education, public cafeterias, etc. The profit motive is very inefficient and easily used to extort unnecessary profits that harm society.

You don’t seem to understand that greed for power and money is not limited to the people, in fact, it is more prevalent amoung those in government. Forgive me if I don’t believe that putting more power in their hands to control my movement, my health and where I live is a good idea. Honestly, only the very naive fall for such Utopian ideals.

 

[Rigby5]

One of the main ways they can do that is letting the US pick up the tab to the tune of 32 trillion dollars while they provide more services to their people at our expense.

There really is no need at all for the trillions we spend on "defense".
The reality is we have not really been "attacked" since 1812, and we are the main aggressors in the world.

 

[Rigby5]

And the priority is to get the US to pay for their defense so they can provide more services to their people.

Defense from whom?
The US is the only one invading innocent countries.
Even with the Ukraine, we deliberately caused it, starting back in 2014, in order to get a first strike capability against Russia.
Nothing we do is remotely "defensive", like Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran (1953), etc.

 

[rightwinger]

There really is no need at all for the trillions we spend on "defense".
The reality is we have not really been "attacked" since 1812, and we are the main aggressors in the world.

Our military extends our power around the world
They do not defend the American people