Russian Calls Out Barack Obama As A Communist

[Vox]

That's like the time a socialist wrote an article saying that "O" wasn't a socialist in a socialist magazine. The right claimed he was just saying that so Obama could continue to be a stealth socialist.
Taking every dictionary's definition of communist and socialist, the right's definition of both just doesn't come close. It's just a couple of words the far right talking heads use to scare their followers and naturally, the followers are doing exactly what their talking heads want them to do, Be afraid, be very afraid, and they are!

yawn

you better take the basics, instead the false online "dictionary" descriptions - starting from marx's Manifesto and read at least the chapter II.
You will be able to understand why is obama called marxist as is the whole left-wing dimocrap party.

So, Vox, the Tea Party definition is the only true definition and who in the hell needs several different dictionaries that all have basically the same definitions and are put together by scholars who are non-partisans. Is that correct?
Yeah, that's the ticket!

TP has never defined the meanings of socialism or communism.
Marx and Lenin did.
Learn the basics.

 

[Sallow]

That's like the time a socialist wrote an article saying that "O" wasn't a socialist in a socialist magazine. The right claimed he was just saying that so Obama could continue to be a stealth socialist.
Taking every dictionary's definition of communist and socialist, the right's definition of both just doesn't come close. It's just a couple of words the far right talking heads use to scare their followers and naturally, the followers are doing exactly what their talking heads want them to do, Be afraid, be very afraid, and they are!

yawn

you better take the basics, instead the false online "dictionary" descriptions - starting from marx's Manifesto and read at least the chapter II.
You will be able to understand why is obama called marxist as is the whole left-wing dimocrap party.

So, Vox, the Tea Party definition is the only true definition and who in the hell needs several different dictionaries that all have basically the same definitions and are put together by scholars who are non-partisans. Is that correct?
Yeah, that's the ticket!

Conservatives are developing a new language.

It's a little like Klingon without the smarts..

 

[Vox]

And what, specifically, is communist.

Feel free.

And reference Marx as well.

Also you do know that Marx was never a part of any government, right?

He was basically an egghead.

You guys use this word all the time..while NOT understanding it's American Liberals that have historically lead the fight against the Soviets and Maoist Chinese.

Conservatives have basically not done shit. They just call the people fighting these battles "Communists".

pick up the Marx's Manifesto and try to digest it YOURSELF.

I am not going to chew it for you
Manifesto of the Communist Party

So now that you get challenged on this, you can't back up your shit.

Laughable.

I mean..seriously laughable.

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

I doubt that you've seriously studied what you linked.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
-Ronald Reagan

Which tells you something about his intellectual capacity.

yawn

a true marxist leftard is extremely flexible. if needed he will worship Reagan

 

[Sallow]

yawn

you better take the basics, instead the false online "dictionary" descriptions - starting from marx's Manifesto and read at least the chapter II.
You will be able to understand why is obama called marxist as is the whole left-wing dimocrap party.

So, Vox, the Tea Party definition is the only true definition and who in the hell needs several different dictionaries that all have basically the same definitions and are put together by scholars who are non-partisans. Is that correct?
Yeah, that's the ticket!

TP has never defined the meanings of socialism or communism.
Marx and Lenin did.
Learn the basics.

And you can't seem to express it.

You also left out Stalin and Trotsky.

But that's okay.

 

[auditor0007]

Some web site no one has ever heard of says some guy in Russia no one has ever heard of says Obama is a communist.

Well...damn it. I just can't fight evidence like that!

Here is his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/xavier.lerma

A self (un?) employed conservative Christian evangelical. Who guessed that? Raise your hand.

Xavier Lerma is "employed" by Pravda, actually. He's a columnist.

All of his articles are either about how Obama is a Communist, or how Glorious Leader Putin is the most manly man in all of history.

If that's who you guys want to get your information from, be my guest.

Well of course he is a big supporter of Putin; otherwise he would be doing time in the Gulag.

 

[tooAlive]

Read a fucking book sometime.

The ultimate aim of communism is the elimination of government.

Completely.

Communists have no taxes, no private property, no private industry no private anything.

Everything belongs to the state.

Communism sets up a classless, egalitarian society run completely by the people.

Which is why it's impossible to implement.

So..what you generally have are despots that use communism as a shroud to get into power.

Once that's accomplished, generally what's put up is an oligarchy, military dictatorship or some other form of one person or one party rule.

That's not communism or socialism.

[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] A little contradictory, don't you think?

Nope.

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

 

[Sallow]

pick up the Marx's Manifesto and try to digest it YOURSELF.

I am not going to chew it for you
Manifesto of the Communist Party

So now that you get challenged on this, you can't back up your shit.

Laughable.

I mean..seriously laughable.

You don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

I doubt that you've seriously studied what you linked.

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
-Ronald Reagan

Which tells you something about his intellectual capacity.

yawn

a true marxist leftard is extremely flexible. if needed he will worship Reagan

Oh gosh..

 

[Vox]

[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] A little contradictory, don't you think?

Nope.

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

The State and Revolution

it's all described here. chapter V

but our leftards do not read the originals.

they just parrot what their propaganda brainwashes them with

for the deep digging one might enjoy this:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/

 

[Sallow]

[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] A little contradictory, don't you think?

Nope.

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

State in the Communist sense is a "community" or "commune" of people.


But you'd know that if you read Marx.

 

[Vox]

Nope.

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

State in the Communist sense is a "community" or "commune" of people.


But you'd know that if you read Marx.

you don't know either.

stop bullshitting

 

[Vox]

The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life's prime want"--we do not and cannot know.

That is why we are entitled to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state, emphasizing the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of communism, and leaving the question of the time required for, or the concrete forms of, the withering away quite open, because there is no material for answering these questions.

The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs".

Vladimir Lenin's
The State and Revolution
Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

 

[tooAlive]

Nope.

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

State in the Communist sense is a "community" or "commune" of people.


But you'd know that if you read Marx.

From the link Vox just posted...

Then the door will be thrown wide open for the transition from the first phase of communist society to its higher phase, and with it to the complete withering away of the state.

In order to arrive at full-blown communism, the state needs to be done away with. I don't see why Marx would re-refer to the community as a state if he's clear about abolishing it.

But then again, nothing Marx ever wrote has any merit so I can see how he'd make that mistake.

 

[tooAlive]

Communism is nothing more than the poor man's version of anarchy, as the monetary system is done away with as well.

A stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Both ideologies are utopian and believe such a fantasy land can exist.

 

[Decus]

Nope.

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

State in the Communist sense is a "community" or "commune" of people.


But you'd know that if you read Marx.

Be honest, you haven't read a book in your life. As far as life in the former Soviet Bloc, you know nothing. You got a big mouth and nothing more.

 

[NLT]

Yes, it is.

If there's no government, nothing can belong to the state.

There is no state in communism.

State in the Communist sense is a "community" or "commune" of people.


But you'd know that if you read Marx.

Be honest, you haven't read a book in your life. As far as life in the former Soviet Bloc, you know nothing. You got a big mouth and nothing more.

Besides being a scholar on "Marxism", sallow has been a furniture mover and a wall street big shot.

 

[tooAlive]

Sallow may be a little confused.

Marxism requires the state to overthrow the capitalists (revolution) and according to him the state may be comprised of "armed workers," but once they get to transitional phase into communism, that "state" is supposed to wither away.

 

[Edgetho]

yawn

you better take the basics, instead the false online "dictionary" descriptions - starting from marx's Manifesto and read at least the chapter II.
You will be able to understand why is obama called marxist as is the whole left-wing dimocrap party.

So, Vox, the Tea Party definition is the only true definition and who in the hell needs several different dictionaries that all have basically the same definitions and are put together by scholars who are non-partisans. Is that correct?
Yeah, that's the ticket!

TP has never defined the meanings of socialism or communism.
Marx and Lenin did.
Learn the basics.

No they didn't, Vox. That may have been what you were taught, but that doesn't make it so.

Socialism was around long before Marx and there were dozens of socialist theorists who had as much sway over revolutionary politics as did Marx.

People, too many people, conflate Marxism and socialism. And that's too bad. They aren't the same. Some forms of socialism are hostile to Marx's version of socialism and some aren't. Karl Marx was only one of the many revolutionary theorists trying to describe a socialist or utopian vision of the future. And frankly, Marx was one of the worst, one of the least intellectual and his theories were some of the most disjointed daydreams in economic and political history

All Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists.

Word

 

[Edgetho]

Sallow may be a little confused.

Marxism requires the state to overthrow the capitalists (revolution) and according to him the state may be comprised of "armed workers," but once they get to transitional phase into communism, that "state" is supposed to wither away.

Sallow isn't confused, he's stupid.

 

[Sallow]

Sallow may be a little confused.

Marxism requires the state to overthrow the capitalists (revolution) and according to him the state may be comprised of "armed workers," but once they get to transitional phase into communism, that "state" is supposed to wither away.

If you want to get into Semantics..fine.

The Communist Utopia has no private ownership.

Does that work better for you?

It also has no taxation.

That's the type of thing you folks dream about isn't it?

 

[tooAlive]

Sallow may be a little confused.

Marxism requires the state to overthrow the capitalists (revolution) and according to him the state may be comprised of "armed workers," but once they get to transitional phase into communism, that "state" is supposed to wither away.

If you want to get into Semantics..fine.

The Communist Utopia has no private ownership.

Does that work better for you?

It also has no taxation.

That's the type of thing you folks dream about isn't it?

Not quite. There's no taxation because there's no monetary system.

No point in being a capitalist if there's no capital, is there?

That's like a telling a liberal they won't have to worry about having medical insurance once they're dead.