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

Waning efficacy..fall is f#$+ed.

It's going to happen. Unelected Joe has accomplished something Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan failed to do. He has UNITED the vast majority of American voters, (better known as mainstream conservatives) who are pissed off at this fcked up economy, pissed off at voter fraud and pissed off at the current crop of idiots with Ds beside their name.

Thanks to Joe, we are going to MOB the polls and win back both houses of Congress. First item up, either impeach or 25th Amendment Joe. Second item, roll back his economy killing exec orders.

Then after President Trump wins his THIRD election, we'll finally finish fixing the damage done by the people.

It's coming.
It's going to happen. Unelected Joe has accomplished something Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan failed to do. He has UNITED the vast majority of American voters, (better known as mainstream conservatives) who are pissed off at this fcked up economy, pissed off at voter fraud and pissed off at the current crop of idiots with Ds beside their name.

Thanks to Joe, we are going to MOB the polls and win back both houses of Congress. First item up, either impeach or 25th Amendment Joe. Second item, roll back his economy killing exec orders.

Then after President Trump wins his THIRD election, we'll finally finish fixing the damage done by the people.

It's coming.
You got it.
 

EatTheRich

President
Yes, Joe was so "moderate" that under his leadership the official policy of the USSR was to export communism all over the world. Look, I get why you want the world to forget that Stalin was a commie, because that kind of puts a real crimp in your efforts to paint communism in a positive light. Nobody is falling for it...
As was stated in the link provided, that was the OPPOSITE of his policy of "socialism in a single country." It was in fact the communist policy espoused by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, and the sticking point that required purging the party of 95% of the pre-revolution members in order for Stalin to carry his radical revisionism into effect.
 

EatTheRich

President
It's going to happen. Unelected Joe has accomplished something Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan failed to do. He has UNITED the vast majority of American voters, (better known as mainstream conservatives) who are pissed off at this fcked up economy, pissed off at voter fraud and pissed off at the current crop of idiots with Ds beside their name.

Thanks to Joe, we are going to MOB the polls and win back both houses of Congress. First item up, either impeach or 25th Amendment Joe. Second item, roll back his economy killing exec orders.

Then after President Trump wins his THIRD election, we'll finally finish fixing the damage done by the people.

It's coming.
By "mob the polls" do you mean chase all the voters of color out with torches and pitchforks? Because you are definitely NOT the "vast majority" of those legally entitled to vote.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
As was stated in the link provided, that was the OPPOSITE of his policy of "socialism in a single country." It was in fact the communist policy espoused by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky, and the sticking point that required purging the party of 95% of the pre-revolution members in order for Stalin to carry his radical revisionism into effect.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, all communists, whether you acknowedge it or not. You don't get to pick and choose which communists you have to defend.
 

EatTheRich

President
Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, all communists, whether you acknowedge it or not. You don't get to pick and choose which communists you have to defend.
Communism is not a doctrine, it is a movement of self-liberation on the part of the working class. Any leader who is anti-working class is anti-communist regardless of how they subjectively identify. Communists pointed out in very specific detail how Stalin and his intellectual heirs (Kim Il-Sung, Mao, and ultimately Pol Pot) betrayed the core principles of what communism had always stood for.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Communism is not a doctrine, it is a movement of self-liberation on the part of the working class. Any leader who is anti-working class is anti-communist regardless of how they subjectively identify. Communists pointed out in very specific detail how Stalin and his intellectual heirs (Kim Il-Sung, Mao, and ultimately Pol Pot) betrayed the core principles of what communism had always stood for.
Yes, I can see why you would seek to distance the ideology from its most "successful" practitioners. Communism is utopian and there is no such thing as a "communist paradise" except in the fevered little minds of you elitists in the faculty lounges. When it gets implemented, it inevitably ends in brutality, because there are no perfect people.
 

EatTheRich

President
Yes, I can see why you would seek to distance the ideology from its most "successful" practitioners. Communism is utopian and there is no such thing as a "communist paradise" except in the fevered little minds of you elitists in the faculty lounges. When it gets implemented, it inevitably ends in brutality, because there are no perfect people.
Funny, I read an article today by Joseph Hansen making an excellent demonstration of the link between the bourgeois fatalism that unscientifically projects an unchanging human nature in order to discredit efforts to improve the lives of the masses on one hand, and pro-fascist propaganda on the other. The most successful communists are those who organize the working class most effectively for its self-liberation. Perhaps the top 10 most effective in history to have had state power in their hands (edited because I thought of a couple more):

1. V.I. Lenin
2. Fidel Castro
3. Thomas Sankara
4. Raul Castro
5. Alexander Dubcek
6. Ahmed Ben Bella
7. Daniel Ortega (who turned renegade and joined the counterrevolution later)
8. Maurice Bishop
9. Miguel Diaz-Canel
10. Amilcar Cabral

But a first attempt at government by an insurrectionary oppressed class, in a long-backward country with a centuries-long unbroken tradition of brutality, but buoyed by the economic and political advantages of a historically rising class able to release productive forces from the bonds of the outworn society, will naturally be notably brutal even where, as in Cuba, the class nature of the government has not shifted from proletarian to petty-bourgeois.

Compare the first governments created by the bourgeoisie as a result of their radical experiments in redistributing wealth: the antique bourgeois governments of the Greeks, Indians, and Phoenicians, with the majority of the population enslaved; the absolutist monarchies of Vlad the Impaler, Henry VIII, and Ivan the Terrible; the corrupt and reactionary rule of the Medici and Borgias, Savonarola, Calvin, Cromwell, and Napoleon. And of course any moderating effect on the brutality has been a direct result of the working-class struggle.
 
Last edited:

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Funny, I read an article today by Joseph Hansen making an excellent demonstration of the link between the bourgeois fatalism that unscientifically projects an unchanging human nature in order to discredit efforts to improve the lives of the masses on one hand, and pro-fascist propaganda on the other. The most successful communists are those who organize the working class most effectively for its self-liberation. Perhaps the top 10 most effective in history to have had state power in their hands (edited because I thought of a couple more):

1. V.I. Lenin
2. Fidel Castro
3. Thomas Sankara
4. Raul Castro
5. Alexander Dubcek
6. Ahmed Ben Bella
7. Daniel Ortega (who turned renegade and joined the counterrevolution later)
8. Maurice Bishop
9. Miguel Diaz-Canel
10. Amilcar Cabral

But a first attempt at government by an insurrectionary oppressed class, in a long-backward country with a centuries-long unbroken tradition of brutality, but buoyed by the economic and political advantages of a historically rising class able to release productive forces from the bonds of the outworn society, will naturally be notably brutal even where, as in Cuba, the class nature of the government has not shifted from proletarian to petty-bourgeois.

Compare the first governments created by the bourgeoisie as a result of their radical experiments in redistributing wealth: the antique bourgeois governments of the Greeks, Indians, and Phoenicians, with the majority of the population enslaved; the absolutist monarchies of Vlad the Impaler, Henry VIII, and Ivan the Terrible; the corrupt and reactionary rule of the Medici and Borgias, Savonarola, Calvin, Cromwell, and Napoleon. And of course any moderating effect on the brutality has been a direct result of the working-class struggle.
So I am shocked (SHOCKED) to find that the only "successful" communist countries were ones that were shitholes before (and after) the commies took control.
 

EatTheRich

President
So I am shocked (SHOCKED) to find that the only "successful" communist countries were ones that were shitholes before (and after) the commies took control.
You mean that workers never took over any really rich countries except E. Germany … which was definitely in dire straits before they took over and definitely better off afterward … since the imperialists were willing to go to unimaginable extremes of violence to prevent them from doing so.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You mean that workers never took over any really rich countries except E. Germany … which was definitely in dire straits before they took over and definitely better off afterward … since the imperialists were willing to go to unimaginable extremes of violence to prevent them from doing so.
Yeah, it was so successful that its most enduring image is this:

(1) people shot at berlin wall - Bing images
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Compare that to the best-known imageof the capitalist government it replaced:
View attachment 64608

Then compare the scale: 200 killed for violating the GDR’s admittedly draconian border security, vs. 11 million exterminated by the Nazi regime on the basis of race and ideology.
Again, Hitler was not a "capitalist." In fact, his movement was anti-capitalist AND anti-communist. IOW, he was a socialist.
 

EatTheRich

President
Again, Hitler was not a "capitalist." In fact, his movement was anti-capitalist AND anti-communist. IOW, he was a socialist.
Socialists aren’t anti-communist. And he took advantage of anti-capitalist sentiment to build his movement, and had to make concessions to his anti-capitalist base … but literally no politician in history has served the capitalists more faithfully.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Socialists aren’t anti-communist. And he took advantage of anti-capitalist sentiment to build his movement, and had to make concessions to his anti-capitalist base … but literally no politician in history has served the capitalists more faithfully.
Some of them (obviously) are.
 

EatTheRich

President
Nazi propaganda is calling themselves "socialists?" That is ridiculous.
That Nazis called themselves socialists is well known. Since the claim was clearly false and intended to:
1) portray the Nazis as the champions of the oppressed when in fact they were working to entrench the rule of most powerful finance capitalists
2) discredit actual socialism, which they hated, by juxtaposition with their actions

the term “propaganda” is clearly merited
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
That Nazis called themselves socialists is well known. Since the claim was clearly false and intended to:
1) portray the Nazis as the champions of the oppressed when in fact they were working to entrench the rule of most powerful finance capitalists
2) discredit actual socialism, which they hated, by juxtaposition with their actions

the term “propaganda” is clearly merited
1. How is that different from any other socialist movements?
2. Again, the Nazis were anti-capitalist and anti-communist - they weren't trying to "discredit socialism" they were central planning like commies while still allowing (ostensible) private ownership of the means of production. That is textbook socialist.
 

EatTheRich

President
1. How is that different from any other socialist movements?
2. Again, the Nazis were anti-capitalist and anti-communist - they weren't trying to "discredit socialism" they were central planning like commies while still allowing (ostensible) private ownership of the means of production. That is textbook socialist.
Central planning is as typical of monopoly capitalism as of socialism (this is an example of capitalism progressively undermining itself by its nature). The difference is whether the economy is directed by the state to favor capitalist trusts that would fail without state planning, taking capitalism down with them, or to serve a ruling proletariat, and the chief material factor making the difference is state vs. private ownership of the means of production. I guess using your crazy redefinition we can make Churchill’s Conservative Party “socialist” next on the basis of his central planning.

The Nazis’ substantial anti-communism made it felt from the beatings by Brown Shirts to the repressive legislation to the concentration camps and gallows to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Their verbal anti-capitalism manifested itself through persecution of Jews as scapegoats for the Krupps and Thyssens the Nazis served as the executive committee for, efforts to revive the medieval guild, patriarchal family, the Prussian aristocracy, the Holy Roman Empire, and other relics of precapitalist barbarism, demagogic attacks on English usury, and shamefaced repetition, sotto voce, of the word “socialism.” Even Goebbels, on the party’s left-wing fringe, coined the phrase “Iron Curtain”—later adopted by Churchill—to describe the incompatibility between his views of freedom and that of the socialist world. That the term “privatization” was coined to describe the fundamental economic policy under the Nazis, and that Austrian Economics founder Ludwig von Mises praised Germany alongside similar fascist dictatorships for their service to freedom, and himself served as economic guru for a similar fascist regime in Austria, and that the pope hailed Hitler’s invasion of the USSR as an act of liberation, say it all about how anti-capitalist the “National Socialists” really were.

Sadly, the Nazis are not the only antilabor, anticommunist opportunists to steal socialism’s good name. What distinguishes them is their complete break with the labor aristocracy and their alliance with a middle class alienated from labor for the total war against the unions and the left that was the basis of their promise of national renewal.
 
Last edited:

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Central planning is as typical of monopoly capitalism as of socialism (this is an example of capitalism progressively undermining itself by its nature). The difference is whether the economy is directed by the state to favor capitalist trusts that would fail without state planning, taking capitalism down with them, or to serve a ruling proletariat, and the chief material factor making the difference is state vs. private ownership of the means of production. I guess using your crazy redefinition we can make Churchill’s Conservative Party “socialist” next on the basis of his central planning.

The Nazis’ substantial anti-communism made it felt from the beatings by Brown Shirts to the repressive legislation to the concentration camps and gallows to the invasion of the Soviet Union. Their verbal anti-capitalism manifested itself through persecution of Jews as scapegoats for the Krupps and Thyssens the Nazis served as the executive committee for, efforts to revive the medieval guild, patriarchal family, the Prussian aristocracy, the Holy Roman Empire, and other relics of precapitalist barbarism, demagogic attacks on English usury, and shamefaced repetition, sotto voce, of the word “socialism.” Even Goebbels, on the party’s left-wing fringe, coined the phrase “Iron Curtain”—later adopted by Churchill—to describe the incompatibility between his views of freedom and that of the socialist world. That the term “privatization” was coined to describe the fundamental economic policy under the Nazis, and that Austrian Economics founder Ludwig von Mises praised Germany alongside similar fascist dictatorships for their service to freedom, and himself served as economic guru for a similar fascist regime in Austria, and that the pope hailed Hitler’s invasion of the USSR as an act of liberation, say it all about how anti-capitalist the “National Socialists” really were.

Sadly, the Nazis are not the only antilabor, anticommunist opportunists to steal socialism’s good name. What distinguishes them is their complete break with the labor aristocracy and their alliance with a middle class alienated from labor for the total war against the unions and the left that was the basis of their promise of national renewal.
Ah, the old "it's not the socialists that gave socialism a bad rap" story, blaming anyone and everyone but the socialists for their failure. Propaganda!
 
Top