Got it ....   and moving on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 10:43:14 AM
So you see marxists and fabians as both striving for the same end but by differing means?
Thats cool.  But that isn't a definition of Marxists, socialism and communism.  Are you going to by provide no definition?

It would be like asking:  What is a NAZI?  And someone answering well there are neo-nazis and NAZIS. 

Can you please define marxism/fabianism in terms of their economic theory as you see it?

So for example, when you say Obama is a marxist, towards what end is he looking to achieve?  What economic theorem is he pursuing?

If you are just not going to provide this definition thats fine but please tell me so so I stop bothering to ask.

Fabians are Marxists!

I can't make it any clearer! Read the link I provided, don't be so afraid to learn something. Fabians changed one thing, they don't believe in the violence Karl subscribed to, but they share the same exact end goal of communism.
Yeah, I get it, your entire belief system hangs in the balance, or you could continue to go through life a blither idiot, clueless when you look the fool for spewing nonsense.
This is not a debate, this is me teaching you something, and if you don't want to learn, that's your prerogative, but don't jump up and down, claiming some illusioned victory, no one here has the patience for children.

Quote from: Solar on April 03, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
Fabians are Marxists!

I can't make it any clearer! Read the link I provided, don't be so afraid to learn something. Fabians changed one thing, they don't believe in the violence Karl subscribed to, but they share the same exact end goal of communism.
Yeah, I get it, your entire belief system hangs in the balance, or you could continue to go through life a blither idiot, clueless when you look the fool for spewing nonsense.
This is not a debate, this is me teaching you something, and if you don't want to learn, that's your prerogative, but don't jump up and down, claiming some illusioned victory, no one here has the patience for children.

Where did I declare victory?

I am genuinely trying to learn your view about Marxism.

I get the point, and agree, that Fabians are Marxist via a different means.  What I am asking is what you view to be the economic policy of Marxism/Fabian.  Thats all.  When you say, for example, Obama is a Marxist, I want to know what economic policy you think he is pursuing.  I.E. what is Marxism/Fabiansm to you?

I am not trying to debate I am trying to learn how you define Marxism?  Or to be more straight, do you beleive Obama is trying to pursue the supposed utopia described by Karl Marx via standard communist thought?  The entire eradication of private enterprise?

I am trying to do this the right way.

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 12:16:00 PM
Where did I declare victory?

I am genuinely trying to learn your view about Marxism.

I get the point, and agree, that Fabians are Marxist via a different means.  What I am asking is what you view to be the economic policy of Marxism/Fabian.  Thats all.  When you say, for example, Obama is a Marxist, I want to know what economic policy you think he is pursuing.  I.E. what is Marxism/Fabiansm to you?

I am not trying to debate I am trying to learn how you define Marxism?  Or to be more straight, do you beleive Obama is trying to pursue the supposed utopia described by Karl Marx via standard communist thought?  The entire eradication of private enterprise?

I am trying to do this the right way.

You fail to grasp the fact that this is not opinion, it is basic fact. Obozo is a Fabian, he was a member of the "New Party" a spin off of the Communist party, all while being a sitting Senator.
Look it up for yourself, and yes, the Dim party not only vetted him, they pushed him on an unsuspecting nation.
Had you been around here at the time, you'd have seen how we were trying to tell everyone how the Dim party backed a Marxist for POTUS.
Look, it incumbent upon you to learn all you can about every aspect of socialism and how it has absolutely no place in American politics.
Here's some names you may or may bnot be familiar with.

Examples of Fabian members are:  Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes.

"The English British Labour Party formed in 1906 . . . and it adopted for its permanent party platform a Fabian study entitled LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER. It proposed what it termed  -- The Four Pillars of the House :

(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.

Many of these aims were incorporated into the League of Nations and later the United Nations."

"Few Americans describe themselves as socialists; European socialists, however, point out that in America -- LIBERALISM -- means the same as socialism in Europe. . . .

Liberalism is rooted in the desire of fallen human nature to be freed from the shackles of established authority and accepted norms. . . . The primary value of practicing liberals, therefore, is a liberty divorced from moral absolutes, which often becomes licentiousness. . . . Robert Niesbet, a respected scholar from Columbia University, points out that there is another side to the liberal mindset:  a desire for centralized political power."

Americans who have supported liberal ideals are:  John Dewey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, B.F. Skinner, Betty Friedan, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov.

QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:

A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71).  Its title is "1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism".

Article's ABSTRACT in USC's library database: 

     "Sidney Webb's Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today's almost universal subservience of the individual to the state.  Based on Bismarck's Prussian model, Webb's concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere."

EXCERPTS from the article:

     ". . . Fabianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed many other illusions.  In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, FABIANISM BECAME ASSIMILATED BY LIBERALS, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to so-called social and economic rights.  This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom."

"Between 1890 and 1990 an age of imperialism has given way, not to an age of self-determination, but to an age of almost universal subservience of the individual to the state." 

AUTHOR:   Maurice W. Cranston, Professor of Political Science, LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.

Think Agenda 21

Quote from: Solar on April 03, 2017, 12:31:32 PM
You fail to grasp the fact that this is not opinion, it is basic fact. Obozo is a Fabian, he was a member of the "New Party" a spin off of the Communist party, all while being a sitting Senator.
Look it up for yourself, and yes, the Dim party not only vetted him, they pushed him on an unsuspecting nation.
Had you been around here at the time, you'd have seen how we were trying to tell everyone how the Dim party backed a Marxist for POTUS.
Look, it incumbent upon you to learn all you can about every aspect of socialism and how it has absolutely no place in American politics.
Here's some names you may or may bnot be familiar with.

Examples of Fabian members are:  Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes.

"The English British Labour Party formed in 1906 . . . and it adopted for its permanent party platform a Fabian study entitled LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER. It proposed what it termed  -- The Four Pillars of the House :

(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.

Many of these aims were incorporated into the League of Nations and later the United Nations."

"Few Americans describe themselves as socialists; European socialists, however, point out that in America -- LIBERALISM -- means the same as socialism in Europe. . . .

Liberalism is rooted in the desire of fallen human nature to be freed from the shackles of established authority and accepted norms. . . . The primary value of practicing liberals, therefore, is a liberty divorced from moral absolutes, which often becomes licentiousness. . . . Robert Niesbet, a respected scholar from Columbia University, points out that there is another side to the liberal mindset:  a desire for centralized political power."

Americans who have supported liberal ideals are:  John Dewey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, B.F. Skinner, Betty Friedan, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov.

QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:

A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71).  Its title is "1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism".

Article's ABSTRACT in USC's library database: 

     "Sidney Webb's Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today's almost universal subservience of the individual to the state.  Based on Bismarck's Prussian model, Webb's concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere."

EXCERPTS from the article:

     ". . . Fabianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed many other illusions.  In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, FABIANISM BECAME ASSIMILATED BY LIBERALS, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to so-called social and economic rights.  This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom."

"Between 1890 and 1990 an age of imperialism has given way, not to an age of self-determination, but to an age of almost universal subservience of the individual to the state." 

AUTHOR:   Maurice W. Cranston, Professor of Political Science, LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.

I will take these as your definition of Marxism:
(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.



As for Obama and the Dems:
1.Both political parties support a national minimum wage and state financed social welfare programs.  Anyone opposed to national minmum wage, for example, simply would prefer to replace the tyranny of Marxism with tyranny of slave labor.  I doubt this is your biggest hang up.  If it is, we can revisit.

But the bigger issue to me is that you would have to explain to me why campagin donations, go to both parties, from oil, military, fianance, etc.  Why are these super rich bankers and tycoons donating money to both political parties, including Obama who was heavily financed by Wall street and even put ex bankers into in administration. 

Are you suggesting that these wealthy donors are to in agreement that fabinaism will lead to their increased wealth?  If so, then surely you would argue that republicans to are marxists?

The US does of course partake in the IMF because we dominate from it.  The IMF, in order to recieve aid, requires countries to cut state programs and open up their economies.  This is clearly the opposite of Marxisms as it literally requires free markets to receive aid.  This to me is a massive whole in your theory.  The idea of one government is to me hysterical.  The US violates the UN more then ayn other nation, and acts with or without its approval.  Also, the US does not allow its soldiers to be tried by foreign courts, a major reason why OBAMA pulled out of Iraq. 

It seems to me that the US operates under an ideology of imperialism.  Which is, free markets when we know we will win.  Protectionism where we wont(farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.)

Ted Cruz, the hero of the tea party, takes money from the same groups that Obama, Clinton, Bush did.  Explain that paradox.

And thanks for taking the time on the last post.

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 01:33:11 PM

I will take these as your definition of Marxism:
(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.



As for Obama and the Dems:
1.Both political parties support a national minimum wage and state financed social welfare programs.  Anyone opposed to national minmum wage, for example, simply would prefer to replace the tyranny of Marxism with tyranny of slave labor.  I doubt this is your biggest hang up.  If it is, we can revisit.

But the bigger issue to me is that you would have to explain to me why campagin donations, go to both parties, from oil, military, fianance, etc.  Why are these super rich bankers and tycoons donating money to both political parties, including Obama who was heavily financed by Wall street and even put ex bankers into in administration. 

Are you suggesting that these wealthy donors are to in agreement that fabinaism will lead to their increased wealth?  If so, then surely you would argue that republicans to are marxists?

The US does of course partake in the IMF because we dominate from it.  The IMF, in order to recieve aid, requires countries to cut state programs and open up their economies.  This is clearly the opposite of Marxisms as it literally requires free markets to receive aid.  This to me is a massive whole in your theory.  The idea of one government is to me hysterical.  The US violates the UN more then ayn other nation, and acts with or without its approval.  Also, the US does not allow its soldiers to be tried by foreign courts, a major reason why OBAMA pulled out of Iraq. 

It seems to me that the US operates under an ideology of imperialism.  Which is, free markets when we know we will win.  Protectionism where we wont(farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.)

Ted Cruz, the hero of the tea party, takes money from the same groups that Obama, Clinton, Bush did.  Explain that paradox.

And thanks for taking the time on the last post.

So you then admit, the Dim party is Marxist, correct?

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 01:33:11 PM

I will take these as your definition of Marxism:
(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.



As for Obama and the Dems:
1.Both political parties support a national minimum wage and state financed social welfare programs.  Anyone opposed to national minmum wage, for example, simply would prefer to replace the tyranny of Marxism with tyranny of slave labor.  I doubt this is your biggest hang up.  If it is, we can revisit.

But the bigger issue to me is that you would have to explain to me why campagin donations, go to both parties, from oil, military, fianance, etc.  Why are these super rich bankers and tycoons donating money to both political parties, including Obama who was heavily financed by Wall street and even put ex bankers into in administration. 

Are you suggesting that these wealthy donors are to in agreement that fabinaism will lead to their increased wealth?  If so, then surely you would argue that republicans to are marxists?

The US does of course partake in the IMF because we dominate from it.  The IMF, in order to recieve aid, requires countries to cut state programs and open up their economies.  This is clearly the opposite of Marxisms as it literally requires free markets to receive aid.  This to me is a massive whole in your theory.  The idea of one government is to me hysterical.  The US violates the UN more then ayn other nation, and acts with or without its approval.  Also, the US does not allow its soldiers to be tried by foreign courts, a major reason why OBAMA pulled out of Iraq. 

It seems to me that the US operates under an ideology of imperialism.  Which is, free markets when we know we will win.  Protectionism where we wont(farm subsidies, oil subsidies, etc.)

Ted Cruz, the hero of the tea party, takes money from the same groups that Obama, Clinton, Bush did.  Explain that paradox.

And thanks for taking the time on the last post.

Before you go jumping up and down about the GOP....
Note the date. Quote from: Solar on June 02, 2015, 02:01:08 PM

Quote from: Solar on June 02, 2015, 02:01:08 PM
Well, we're just evil Right Wing extremists.
Oh and Damned proud of it!

Does it really surprise anyone that the left is using our tax dollars, to once again attack TEA?
This time under the guise of combating violence?
We don't need violence, we're stealing the GOP and killing off the Dim party, peacefully and legally, one Marxist bastard at a time, and yes, that includes the GOP rino Marxists as well.

Quote from: Solar on April 03, 2017, 02:19:09 PM
So you then admit, the Dim party is Marxist, correct?

I know you are not pro-mainstream GOP.

Know, I think the Dems are simply one of two buisness parties that run this country and their controibution to making the rich richer and the poor poorer is well-documented.

But, again, do you think wall street is marxist?

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 03, 2017, 08:26:31 AM
Personslly I'm still waiting for your definition of Communism, Marxism and Socialism.....

Don't hold your breath.

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 03:24:16 PM
I know you are not pro-mainstream GOP.

Know, I think the Dems are simply one of two buisness parties that run this country and their controibution to making the rich richer and the poor poorer is well-documented.

But, again, do you think wall street is marxist?

You really haven't a fuckin clue what this all means, do you?

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 03:24:16 PM

But, again, do you think wall street is marxist?

Do you think the PBC is? (Peoples bank of China)....how about the Heng Seng Index....(I'll wait while you google it up since I know you have no Fkg clue what that is.

Quote from: Solar on April 03, 2017, 04:13:03 PM
You really haven't a fuckin clue what this all means, do you?

Very childish of you.

I presented you with a series of arguments, responses, questions, etc.

You have responded with noting of substance.

Since you refuse to answer, I will.  For starters your arging implies that you are not far off from someone who believes Sandy Hook was a hoax.  You rely only on sources such as fox news, and the like.  You go to sources with open biases and without criticism accept their presentation.  Thats pathetic, and Id even argue somewhat comical. 

Two possibilites:
1. You think Wall street is Marxist.  If this is the case you didn't graduate 1st grade.  Wall street is clearly not a Marxist entity.  Its the opposite both literally and figuratively.

2. You dont think Wall street is marxist, which is what I think you think.  If thats the case, the government cant be.  Cause they populate the governmentnt, under both parties, write laws, including Dodd-Frank, finance elections, have an overwhelming lobbying influence, etc. 

Either you dont think the government is Marxist, or you think Wall street is.

The same argument can be used for oil, health care, automotive, etc. 

I dont deny that these industries attempt, and do easily, influence government policy.  They do, to their economic benefit. Often this leads to unfair competition. To call this Marxism, however, is to make the term so elastic that it becomes meaningless.

If, that unfair competition leads you to believe that our government is communist.  Then, so were the founding fathers.  Tariffs, for example, or the fact that a huge chunk of the early labor force was free. 

Tell me what I am missing?

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 04:47:02 PM
Very childish of you.


.


Either you dont think the government is Marxist, or you think Wall street is.

The same argument can be used for oil, health care, automotive, etc. 
. 

Tell me what I am missing?

Your explaination of the Heng Seng controled by PRC.....

Quote from: blake allyn on April 03, 2017, 04:47:02 PM

Tell me what I am missing?

What are you missing? Intelligence!
I'm done with your bull shit. You've learned nothing, you continue to act as if you know what you're talking about, but haven't the first clue what Marxism is, or how it's evolved/devolved in the US and just how infected and damaged our nation is.
You try and put on an act like that of a child talking to a mechanic and telling him you're a master when it comes to installing piston return springs.
Yes, everyone here sees what an ass you are, we get that, but your need to pretend you know what adults are talking about while interjecting leftist talking points completely out of context only exposes just how big an idiot you really are.

Blake has leftist the room. Permanently!