New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

This needs to be asked

EatTheRich

President
Sure it's the chapter after Rittenhouse the hunter in your book of lies... Right?
Sure it's the chapter after Rittenhouse the hunter in your book of lies... Right?
Nope. I’ll accept your apology anytime.
 

EatTheRich

President
LOL! As if the "progressives" are (classical) "liberals."

View attachment 67254

That's ME - not you.
Classical liberalism means undisguised class rule by a moneyed elite. That elite called it “liberty.” The workers called it freedom to put their political stamp on society, and freedom only in that respect. The mechanics, yeoman farmers, small-time professionals, small business owners, barbarians, and savages saw in it a highly variable mix of short-term opportunity and long-term threat to their way of life, political freedom relatively speaking often accompanied by economic degradation. To the kings, bishops, counts, and barons, it was the abasement of the deserving at the hands of the leveling spirit of the drunken Jacquerie. To the slaves it was the same old shit, until in the time of Franklin, Robespierre, and Toussaint L’Ouverture that there was enough of a chorus on the radical left to shame the classical liberals into for the first time (not from the time of Cicero to the time of Locke) treating slavery as a threat to its principles, which were after all about the liberty of propertied humans, not about the liberty of human property. In fact, slavery was only abolished in France, Spain, Holland, and much of Germany and Italy because Jacobins willing to violate liberal principles to maintain an alliance with the lower classes took state power out of the hands of the liberals, after slaves seized power of sugar-rich Saint Domingue from the liberal governments of France and its colony to create a left-wing military-police dictatorship. It was only abolished in the U.S. when our own Jacobin element, the Radical Republicans, elevated poor white “p*ckerwoods” and Black freedmen, into a position of power of the economic lives of investors who ended up losing more money than the Russian capitalists expropriated in 1917 or the Chinese capitalists expropriated in 1950.
 

EatTheRich

President
You and I both know that both Hitler and Mussolini were Marxists. The fact that you refuse to accept that fact makes it pretty difficult to have a rational discussion with you on the subject. But other examples exist (Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Idi Amin fit the bill).
Mussolini was a Marxist theoretician, before he broke with the Marxists to support the capitalist war hawks, then violently denounced Marxism in the name of a right-wing nationalist purgative counterrevolution. Hitler was a moron who couldn’t grasp theory more complex than “Your Christian kids are learning to hate themselves in (((Marx’s))) critical Hegelian theory lessons.”

Idi Amin was hardly leftist either. Took power with the help of Israel, tribalist and nationalist, he was a classic capitalist Bonapartist politician, maneuvering back and forth between left and right and between classes to entrench himself in power, but able to do so only by maintaining the capitalist regime. The same can be said of Ortega following his party’s political degeneration, or of Chavez, although their regimes’ literacy rest on a broad pro-democracy uprising in Nicaragua and on multiple popular elections for both while for Amin it rested on a military coup backed by the right.

There have of course been many left-wing dictators though. Julius Caesar, one of the first to hold the official title of dictator, was a leftist. So were Pisistratus (whose title was “tyrant”), Robespierre, Cromwell, Savonarola, Abdallah ibn Yasin, Brigham Young, Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, Qin Shi Huang, Vlad the Impaler, and many more. Not all leftists are created the same. But what they all had in common was radical attacks on the prevailing property system.
 
Last edited:

God of War

Lets go Brandon!
Mussolini was a Marxist theoretician, before he broke with the Marxists to support the capitalist war hawks, then violently denounced Marxism in the name of a right-wing nationalist purgative counterrevolution. Hitler was a moron who couldn’t grasp theory more complex than “Your Christian kids are learning to hate themselves in (((Marx’s))) critical Hegelian theory lessons.”

Idi Amin was hardly leftist either. Took power with the help of Israel, tribalist and nationalist, he was a classic capitalist Bonapartist politician, maneuvering back and forth between left and right and between classes to entrench himself in power, but able to do so only by maintaining the capitalist regime. The same can be said of Ortega following his party’s political degeneration, or of Chavez, although their regimes’ literacy rest on a broad pro-democracy uprising in Nicaragua and on multiple popular elections for both while for Amin it rested on a military coup backed by the right.

There have of course been many left-wing dictators though. Julius Caesar, one of the first to hold the official title of dictator, was a leftist. So were Pisistratus (whose title was “tyrant”), Robespierre, Cromwell, Savonarola, Abdallah ibn Yasin, Brigham Young, Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, Qin Shi Huang, Vlad the Impaler, and many more. Not all leftists are created the same. But what they all had in common was radical attacks on the prevailing property system.
@Raoul_Luke

Richey, it's like you have no fvkin' idea what capitalism is. You confuse an economic theory with politics. Capitalism is agnostic of politics. Communism is an economic system inseparable from a political system because the base economic unit is not the individual but the blocked community. The idea that Idi Amin is a capitalist driven politician is just pure drivel.
 

EatTheRich

President
was
@Raoul_Luke

Richey, it's like you have no fvkin' idea what capitalism is. You confuse an economic theory with politics. Capitalism is agnostic of politics. Communism is an economic system inseparable from a political system because the base economic unit is not the individual but the blocked community. The idea that Idi Amin is a capitalist driven politician is just pure drivel.
Capitalism is "agnostic of politics" in that any political system, from enlightened despotism to representative republic to fascist dictatorship, is equally compatible with capitalism as long as it guarantees a steady supply of profits. The thing Idi Amin took power to protect, on behalf of a comprador bourgeoisie backed by a graft-seeking bureaucratic layer and a well-off officer corps.

Communism as a mode of production is inherently anarchistic because it lacks the class division that is at the root of politics (class struggle). Communism as a social movement is willing to take whatever political forms necessary to protect the general welfare from being sacrificed to the particular interests of a few privileged individuals, until by overcoming privilege in general it is able to re-establish communism as a mode of production.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Nope. I’ll accept your apology anytime.
Huh? So e dude and an orderly protest in pickups addresses the shut down burned down destroyed aspect? Lol... No.
 

God of War

Lets go Brandon!
was

Capitalism is "agnostic of politics" in that any political system, from enlightened despotism to representative republic to fascist dictatorship, is equally compatible with capitalism as long as it guarantees a steady supply of profits. The thing Idi Amin took power to protect, on behalf of a comprador bourgeoisie backed by a graft-seeking bureaucratic layer and a well-off officer corps.

Communism as a mode of production is inherently anarchistic because it lacks the class division that is at the root of politics (class struggle). Communism as a social movement is willing to take whatever political forms necessary to protect the general welfare from being sacrificed to the particular interests of a few privileged individuals, until by overcoming privilege in general it is able to re-establish communism as a mode of production.
Complete fiction.
 

EatTheRich

President
Huh? So e dude and an orderly protest in pickups addresses the shut down burned down destroyed aspect? Lol... No.
Again, I provided evidence of what I claimed was happening, such as one of the dishes spitting on people for wearing masks and the “orderly protest” blocking ambulances’ access to hospitals. Meanwhile you have provided no evidence for what you claimed happened … “members of a major party” burning and destroying businesses.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Again, I provided evidence of what I claimed was happening, such as one of the dishes spitting on people for wearing masks and the “orderly protest” blocking ambulances’ access to hospitals. Meanwhile you have provided no evidence for what you claimed happened … “members of a major party” burning and destroying businesses.
I didn't think I had to provide evidence of the fires in philadelphia, seattle, and so on that occurred earlier this year

We have to pretend that they didn't occur?
 

EatTheRich

President
I didn't think I had to provide evidence of the fires in philadelphia, seattle, and so on that occurred earlier this year

We have to pretend that they didn't occur?
No, what you have to do is to provide evidence that “members of a major party” were responsible.
 
So you're saying that blacks aren't smart enough to see those "tactics".

Gerrymandering and voter suppression of blacks by republicans are perfect examples.

That's why they don't vote republican.
Whine, Get a Check. Whine, Get a Check.

Why should lazy entitled Aframs vote for any party but the Free Stuff Party?
 
“Left wing fascist” is an oxymoron.
Diploma Dumbos Substituted It for Old School's "A Contradiction in Terms"

Coming from the side that pretends to be "educated," you don't know what oxymoron. It means practically the opposite of what the bipartisan media clique has drilled Americans into thinking it means. In reality, not the retarded media, it is a clever phrase using words that would be contradicting in other contexts.
 
You and I both know that both Hitler and Mussolini were Marxists. The fact that you refuse to accept that fact makes it pretty difficult to have a rational discussion with you on the subject. But other examples exist (Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Idi Amin fit the bill).
Socialism Is Capitalism, Jr.


Before he came to power, Mussolini started out as a Leftist. But because that ideology has always been an upper-class scam, the Snob Mob wouldn't let him into their hierarchy because his father was merely a plebeian blacksmith. So he switched to the Right Wing, where he was welcomed. Hitler also welcomed disillusioned Communists into his Party.
 
and got 58,429 Americans killed and twice that many after coming home due to Agent Orange

IMO.,,,,,,,had JFK killed also because he couldn't get elected

LBJ=Saddam
A Dumbo Dubya With Charisma

Quit making a martyr out of that Camelot Dung. He was a loose cannon fraternity bully who almost started World War III. We had missiles in Turkey that were just as close to Russia as Cuba is to us.

Instead of getting both existential threats removed in a trade-off, JFK has to play the tough guy, especially after his cowardice had let Cuban patriots get slaughtered on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Mussolini was a Marxist theoretician, before he broke with the Marxists to support the capitalist war hawks, then violently denounced Marxism in the name of a right-wing nationalist purgative counterrevolution. Hitler was a moron who couldn’t grasp theory more complex than “Your Christian kids are learning to hate themselves in (((Marx’s))) critical Hegelian theory lessons.”

Idi Amin was hardly leftist either. Took power with the help of Israel, tribalist and nationalist, he was a classic capitalist Bonapartist politician, maneuvering back and forth between left and right and between classes to entrench himself in power, but able to do so only by maintaining the capitalist regime. The same can be said of Ortega following his party’s political degeneration, or of Chavez, although their regimes’ literacy rest on a broad pro-democracy uprising in Nicaragua and on multiple popular elections for both while for Amin it rested on a military coup backed by the right.

There have of course been many left-wing dictators though. Julius Caesar, one of the first to hold the official title of dictator, was a leftist. So were Pisistratus (whose title was “tyrant”), Robespierre, Cromwell, Savonarola, Abdallah ibn Yasin, Brigham Young, Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, Qin Shi Huang, Vlad the Impaler, and many more. Not all leftists are created the same. But what they all had in common was radical attacks on the prevailing property system.
Thanks for your full-throated support of my argument...
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Classical liberalism means undisguised class rule by a moneyed elite. That elite called it “liberty.” The workers called it freedom to put their political stamp on society, and freedom only in that respect. The mechanics, yeoman farmers, small-time professionals, small business owners, barbarians, and savages saw in it a highly variable mix of short-term opportunity and long-term threat to their way of life, political freedom relatively speaking often accompanied by economic degradation. To the kings, bishops, counts, and barons, it was the abasement of the deserving at the hands of the leveling spirit of the drunken Jacquerie. To the slaves it was the same old shit, until in the time of Franklin, Robespierre, and Toussaint L’Ouverture that there was enough of a chorus on the radical left to shame the classical liberals into for the first time (not from the time of Cicero to the time of Locke) treating slavery as a threat to its principles, which were after all about the liberty of propertied humans, not about the liberty of human property. In fact, slavery was only abolished in France, Spain, Holland, and much of Germany and Italy because Jacobins willing to violate liberal principles to maintain an alliance with the lower classes took state power out of the hands of the liberals, after slaves seized power of sugar-rich Saint Domingue from the liberal governments of France and its colony to create a left-wing military-police dictatorship. It was only abolished in the U.S. when our own Jacobin element, the Radical Republicans, elevated poor white “p*ckerwoods” and Black freedmen, into a position of power of the economic lives of investors who ended up losing more money than the Russian capitalists expropriated in 1917 or the Chinese capitalists expropriated in 1950.
The idea that there is proof in the real world examples of communism that supports the notion that the commies managed to overcome the natural impulses of narcissistic sociopaths to rule the masses is inane.
 
Top