Would you vote for a socialist presidential candidate?

Would you vote for a socialist presidential candidate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • No

    Votes: 8 61.5%
  • Total voters
    13
Libertad! said:
He's right, but idealizes communism.
Click to expand...

No, not idealising. Simply trying to divorce the word and its true meaning from the mis-application by, particularly, Americans who are still affected to a degree by McCarthyism.
Communism per se has not worked as a national system of government, but the ideal must be to the fore of right thinking men. It acts as a barrier against the excesses of corporatism.
It may be a dream, it may be seen and promoted as a pointless waste of time and effort by those who are deep down frightened of what they believe it to be. But, by the hell, it is better than the slavery into which the corporates and capitalists are striving to put every man, woman and child in the 'free' (hahah) western world.
They'd bring Bangladesh to Baltimore if they could!
 
Steelplate said:
Fuck off...
Click to expand...

Does the truth piss you off that much......lol


He admitted to being a socialist when he was in your party.....live with it....

Now he calls himself an 'independent'.....but that changes nothing....I don't give a shit if he calls himself a meathead.....he is what hes always been...
a socialist democrat and he votes 100% for the Democrat party line......just like the followers of the American Communist Party......they to, vote Democrat
they tell their members to vote Democrat and for good reason.
 
Steelplate said:
Well, explain to me how you get an entire population to buy into it without forcing them to give up the old ways?
Click to expand...

Same way they got american women to smoke in the 30s. Same way as they got you to eat McNuggets even though you know they are not good for you. Same way that half of america believes there is a god that supports giving killing devices to five year old kids. That's how.
 
NOVA said:
Does the truth piss you off that much......lol


He admitted to being a socialist when he was in your party.....live with it....

Now he calls himself an 'independent'.....but that changes nothing....I don't give a shit if he calls himself a meathead.....he is what hes always been...
a socialist democrat and he votes 100% for the Democrat party line......
Click to expand...

Lesser of two evils in his mind, I guess.
 
Lowaicue said:
No, not idealising. Simply trying to divorce the word and its true meaning from the mis-application by, particularly, Americans who are still affected to a degree by McCarthyism.
Communism per se has not worked as a national system of government, but the ideal must be to the fore of right thinking men. It acts as a barrier against the excesses of corporatism.
It may be a dream, it may be seen and promoted as a pointless waste of time and effort by those who are deep down frightened of what they believe it to be. But, by the hell, it is better than the slavery into which the corporates and capitalists are striving to put every man, woman and child in the 'free' (hahah) western world.
They'd bring Bangladesh to Baltimore if they could!
Click to expand...

Yeah, once again, there's little to disagree with. But I might point out that folks like Bolsheviks and Mao were technically communists - even if Russia and China didn't reflect that.
 
Libertad! said:
Yeah, once again, there's little to disagree with. But I might point out that folks like Bolsheviks and Mao were technically communists - even if Russia and China didn't reflect that.
Click to expand...

Mao started as simply a revolutionary. It was while on the long march (which he did not start incidentally) that he started to formulate his philosophy. He was fighting the corruption of Chiang Kai Shek and the invasion of the Japanese. it was but a small step to the realisation that something about China was very very sick. The Russians were setting up soviets in China and promoting their particular brand of government which they called communism. Mao learned of true communism and when he was, by acclaim, given the job of 'leader' he believed in communism. He brought millions out of slavery, he made sure the state could feed and house the peasants, but then he completely lost his way. the great leap forward was a disaster, the first and second five year plans failed miserably and he realised that if he was to really help China he had to develop an authoritarian system of government. His policies, by that time had caused the deaths of millions and had he not been totally ruthless he would have been taken away and shot. Communism in China had ultimately failed as had Mao and we in the west watched in horror the cultural revolution and the way power bent the minds of ordinary people.
 
Lowaicue said:
No, not idealising. Simply trying to divorce the word and its true meaning from the mis-application by, particularly, Americans who are still affected to a degree by McCarthyism.
Communism per se has not worked as a national system of government, but the ideal must be to the fore of right thinking men. It acts as a barrier against the excesses of corporatism.
It may be a dream, it may be seen and promoted as a pointless waste of time and effort by those who are deep down frightened of what they believe it to be. But, by the hell, it is better than the slavery into which the corporates and capitalists are striving to put every man, woman and child in the 'free' (hahah) western world.
They'd bring Bangladesh to Baltimore if they could!
Click to expand...

I agree with you for the most part..especially your thoughts on this crazy, fucked up version of Capitalism.... it's like the robber/baron days all over again.....perhaps you're right though about the perception thing.....I'm old enough to remember the Cold War and still have an association in my mind of Communism and the Iron Curtain and lately...North Korea.
 
Lowaicue said:
Mao started as simply a revolutionary. It was while on the long march (which he did not start incidentally) that he started to formulate his philosophy. He was fighting the corruption of Chiang Kai Shek and the invasion of the Japanese. it was but a small step to the realisation that something about China was very very sick. The Russians were setting up soviets in China and promoting their particular brand of government which they called communism. Mao learned of true communism and when he was, by acclaim, given the job of 'leader' he believed in communism. He brought millions out of slavery, he made sure the state could feed and house the peasants, but then he completely lost his way. the great leap forward was a disaster, the first and second five year plans failed miserably and he realised that if he was to really help China he had to develop an authoritarian system of government. His policies, by that time had caused the deaths of millions and had he not been totally ruthless he would have been taken away and shot. Communism in China had ultimately failed as had Mao and we in the west watched in horror the cultural revolution and the way power bent the minds of ordinary people.
Click to expand...

Well said!

A similar thing happened in Russia. There was a deeply embedded radical culture within the country, due to a minimal level of political access. So gaining popular support for the revolution was not a chief problem. The real trouble arised from post-tsarist Russia. Once the Czars were overthrown, a provisional, democratic government was established. It was very much in the favor of the bourgeoisie, and had very little in terms of Marxist policies, so it faced opposition from revolutionists - it was also unwilling to use state force, didn't have a huge popular backing, didn't have a strong military (Petrograd and Trotsky didn't help this) remained engaged in WW1, and faced a two pronged opposition from Kornlilov's folks and Lenin's. Lenin inevitably took power and, faced with a country unable to economically facilitate his policies, he began his defense of bureaucratic collectivism (rule by the Bolshevik party). After a series of really deplorable shifts in Russian politics, Lenin died. Trotsky and Stalin were placed in a power struggle, but Stalin won the support of the party and Trotsky was exiled. Lenin had set up the framework for Stalin's brutality, and thus began the political killings, classicide, and forced industrialism. Eventually the Union was nothing more than a bureaucratic state capitalism.
 
It's possible that in the classical sense, authoritarianism and leftism were opposites. Since the advent of liberal democracy and market liberalism (which worked against established nobilities and aristocracies), leftist innovations such as socialism and communism have been demonstrably authoritarian. Increasingly, leftism equals authoritarianism, as anti-establishment and anarchist movements continually die off or become rightist.
 
Lowaicue said:
Same way they got american women to smoke in the 30s. Same way as they got you to eat McNuggets even though you know they are not good for you. Same way that half of america believes there is a god that supports giving killing devices to five year old kids. That's how.
Click to expand...

So you would recruit Madison Avenue to persuade people that Communism was good for them?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So you would recruit Madison Avenue to persuade people that Communism was good for them?
Click to expand...
All political parties, indeed all organisations that seek to change and influence populations use MadAve tactics. Language has always been used to change minds and always will. Like most things these tactics may be used for good and bad.
I find your over simplification of the discussion disappointing.
 
Libertad! said:
Would you vote for a socialist presidential candidate?
Click to expand...

certainly, it would shake up both authoritarian parties...of course not much would get done, but that is happening now

i can always hope that the voters will fire enough repugs to make a difference in congress, but i am not holding out much hope...i can always dream though
 
Libertad! said:
I don't believe there's anything to the left of socialism...
Click to expand...

sure there is, communism, but that, capitalism and socialism will not work, but a blend might, if it is the right blend - i.e., people that will compromise and most improbable of all, think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top