Jussie Smollett Lies About MAGA Whiteys

[Tiggnutz]

As a member of the far left, I can say that I'm not okay with any rich white guys, or any rich individuals in general.

Sorry Dude Bernie and Warren are rich and AOC soon will be there is good money in pushing socialism

But Bernie, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez aren't socialists. Literally all three support capitalism.

Who is a socialist? Putin, Maduro, Castro. Who?

Dude, you know that Putin is right-wing, yes?

In American politics, very few people are actually socialist. Off the top of my head, I can think of Pat Noble (member of the SPUSA elected to a school board), Sawant in Seattle city council (member of Socialist Alternative), and that's about it.

Please understand that unless you literally advocate for the end of capitalism, which Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren DO NOT DO, you, by definition, cannot be a socialist. They want to regulate capitalism, not end it. Once they come out for worker-ownership of the means of production, and the end of capitalism to be replaced by socialism as an economic system, then you can call them socialists.

How would a scumbag like Putin stay in power? The promise of socialism is the answer

[Headhunter]

As a member of the far left, I can say that I'm not okay with any rich white guys, or any rich individuals in general.

Sorry Dude Bernie and Warren are rich and AOC soon will be there is good money in pushing socialism

But Bernie, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez aren't socialists. Literally all three support capitalism.

Who is a socialist? Putin, Maduro, Castro. Who?

Dude, you know that Putin is right-wing, yes?

In American politics, very few people are actually socialist. Off the top of my head, I can think of Pat Noble (member of the SPUSA elected to a school board), Sawant in Seattle city council (member of Socialist Alternative), and that's about it.

Please understand that unless you literally advocate for the end of capitalism, which Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren DO NOT DO, you, by definition, cannot be a socialist. They want to regulate capitalism, not end it. Once they come out for worker-ownership of the means of production, and the end of capitalism to be replaced by socialism as an economic system, then you can call them socialists.

How would a scumbag like Putin stay in power? The promise of socialism is the answer

That's not at all how he stays in power or why people support him.

[Tiggnutz]

As a member of the far left, I can say that I'm not okay with any rich white guys, or any rich individuals in general.

Sorry Dude Bernie and Warren are rich and AOC soon will be there is good money in pushing socialism

But Bernie, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez aren't socialists. Literally all three support capitalism.

Who is a socialist? Putin, Maduro, Castro. Who?

Dude, you know that Putin is right-wing, yes?

In American politics, very few people are actually socialist. Off the top of my head, I can think of Pat Noble (member of the SPUSA elected to a school board), Sawant in Seattle city council (member of Socialist Alternative), and that's about it.

Please understand that unless you literally advocate for the end of capitalism, which Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren DO NOT DO, you, by definition, cannot be a socialist. They want to regulate capitalism, not end it. Once they come out for worker-ownership of the means of production, and the end of capitalism to be replaced by socialism as an economic system, then you can call them socialists.

How would a scumbag like Putin stay in power? The promise of socialism is the answer

That's not at all how he stays in power or why people support him.

What is

[Jigsaw]

As a member of the far left, I can say that I'm not okay with any rich white guys, or any rich individuals in general.

Sorry Dude Bernie and Warren are rich and AOC soon will be there is good money in pushing socialism

But Bernie, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez aren't socialists. Literally all three support capitalism.

Who is a socialist? Putin, Maduro, Castro. Who?

Dude, you know that Putin is right-wing, yes?

In American politics, very few people are actually socialist. Off the top of my head, I can think of Pat Noble (member of the SPUSA elected to a school board), Sawant in Seattle city council (member of Socialist Alternative), and that's about it.

Please understand that unless you literally advocate for the end of capitalism, which Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren DO NOT DO, you, by definition, cannot be a socialist. They want to regulate capitalism, not end it. Once they come out for worker-ownership of the means of production, and the end of capitalism to be replaced by socialism as an economic system, then you can call them socialists.

You are unwavering so I respect that but are you offended by the democrats on the Left claiming to offer socialism to further their political aspersions? The promise of free things they can't deliver. Bernie Sanders comes to mind

Most Democrats who call themselves socialists, or even democratic socialists, are generally more social democrats, which is an important distinction I suspect that most people don't understand.

Democratic socialism is a post-capitalist idea (so those who are democratic socialists, I'd generally consider allies, unless they work within the Democratic Party, which I think is an utter sham). Social democrats, however, are more of the "limit capitalism, regulate it, welfare state," type people, which AOC, Sanders, and pretty much any leftist Democrat would fall under.

There are actual differences between these terms, and I'm sorry that when Democrats call themselves "democratic socialists" or "socialists" that they don't know what they mean, but I can't fix that.

And I'm extremely offended when Democrats try to call themselves "the left." In 2016, there were eight candidates for president (Soltysik, White, Kennedy, Stein, La Riva, Moorehead, Mackler, and Lyttle) who I would have called real leftists. Lyttle and Stein, by the way, aren't even socialists, but they were further left than Clinton.

Many socialists actively work outside of the Democratic Party, which is why there are over ten different, currently active, socialist/communist parties in the USA, including, but not limited to:

1) Socialist Equality Party (SEP)
2) Socialist Party USA (SPUSA)
3) Freedom Socialist Party (FSP)
4) Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)
5) Socialist Alternative
6) Socialist Action
7) Socialist Workers Party (SWP)
8) Socialist Party of America (SPA) - This is a newly-formed party, but I'd expect to see some electoral action within the next few years
9) Peace and Freedom Party - Technically not a socialist party, but a popular leftist alternative in California

My point is that yes, I am disgusted by Democrats who try and pretend they have actual leftist intent in mind. Once they support abolishing capitalism and replacing it with a socialistic system, and they call for worker ownership of the means of production, as I said, then I could consider them allies of the working class.

Believe me, I diss Democrats more nowadays than I do Republicans - I do not consider Democrats allies in almost all cases.

[Jason]

Just a friendly reminder that socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.

Nope, because it's never actually existed.

[Tiggnutz]

Doesn't Russia run by one central government who is in charge of every fundamental aspect of everything? Communism is an ugly word for socialism but exactly the same thing

[Headhunter]

As a member of the far left, I can say that I'm not okay with any rich white guys, or any rich individuals in general.

Sorry Dude Bernie and Warren are rich and AOC soon will be there is good money in pushing socialism

But Bernie, Warren, and Ocasio-Cortez aren't socialists. Literally all three support capitalism.

Who is a socialist? Putin, Maduro, Castro. Who?

Dude, you know that Putin is right-wing, yes?

In American politics, very few people are actually socialist. Off the top of my head, I can think of Pat Noble (member of the SPUSA elected to a school board), Sawant in Seattle city council (member of Socialist Alternative), and that's about it.

Please understand that unless you literally advocate for the end of capitalism, which Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren DO NOT DO, you, by definition, cannot be a socialist. They want to regulate capitalism, not end it. Once they come out for worker-ownership of the means of production, and the end of capitalism to be replaced by socialism as an economic system, then you can call them socialists.

How would a scumbag like Putin stay in power? The promise of socialism is the answer

That's not at all how he stays in power or why people support him.

What is

Russians value stability and the projection of power. They like a leader who rules with an iron fist, they view it as the only way which isn't at all crazy given their history. It's really the farthest thing from socialist promises.

[Headhunter]

Just a friendly reminder that socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.

Nope, because it's never actually existed.

Tell me what socialism is.

[Tiggnutz]

Doesn't Russia run by one central government who is in charge of every fundamental aspect of everything? Communism is an ugly word for socialism but exactly the same thing

There is a slight difference the slight misconception that the governing body won't have power or prosper from it

[Jigsaw]

Doesn't Russia run by one central government who is in charge of every fundamental aspect of everything? Communism is an ugly word for socialism but exactly the same thing

The Party that Putin is in is United Russia. Generally speaking, they are seen as a right-wing party, or at the very least, a centrist, catch-all party.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a left-wing party, and while they are not in power, they are the second largest party in the country, which isn't saying much, as Putin's authoritarianism doesn't lend much leeway to parties other than the one he represents.

[Jason]

Just a friendly reminder that socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.

Nope, because it's never actually existed.

Tell me what socialism is.

A failed fringe movement that always ends in starvation and genocide, buddeh.

[Headhunter]

Just a friendly reminder that socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.

Nope, because it's never actually existed.

Tell me what socialism is.

A failed fringe movement that always ends in starvation and genocide, buddeh.

But it's never been implemented, so that's a theoretical outcome.

[Jigsaw]

Related, there is a Communist Party USA, but they haven't ran presidential candidates since Gus Hall in 1984 (who was also the nominee in '80, '76, and '72), and members generally vote Democratic, which is utterly disgusting, in my opinion.

[Jigsaw]

I love how, in Jason's view, no one starves under capitalism.

[Jigsaw]

On another potentially-relevant side-note, I recently became a member of the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA), so my views on rivaling socialists parties should be taken in such a context.

[Tiggnutz]

Doesn't Russia run by one central government who is in charge of every fundamental aspect of everything? Communism is an ugly word for socialism but exactly the same thing

The Party that Putin is in is United Russia. Generally speaking, they are seen as a right-wing party, or at the very least, a centrist, catch-all party.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a left-wing party, and while they are not in power, they are the second largest party in the country, which isn't saying much, as Putin's authoritarianism doesn't lend much leeway to parties other than the one he represents.

There to my knowledge there has never been a successful socialist country becuase though the promise of it is enticing it always ends the same way. Who controls the military controls the country and who controls the military the guy with the most money

[Headhunter]

I'm nowhere near a socialist and think it very likely fails upon implementation much like libertarianism would but it's still disheartening to see how many people have zero understanding of these political systems beyond the stigmas created through decades of U.S. propaganda.

[Headhunter]

Doesn't Russia run by one central government who is in charge of every fundamental aspect of everything? Communism is an ugly word for socialism but exactly the same thing

The Party that Putin is in is United Russia. Generally speaking, they are seen as a right-wing party, or at the very least, a centrist, catch-all party.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a left-wing party, and while they are not in power, they are the second largest party in the country, which isn't saying much, as Putin's authoritarianism doesn't lend much leeway to parties other than the one he represents.

There to my knowledge there has never been a successful socialist country becuase though the promise of it is enticing it always ends the same way. Who controls the military controls the country and who controls the military the guy with the most money

There's never been an unsuccessful socialist country either. There's never been one at all.

[Jigsaw]

I'm nowhere near a socialist and think it very likely fails upon implementation much like libertarianism would but it's still disheartening to see how many people have zero understanding of these political systems beyond the stigmas created through decades of U.S. propaganda.

McCarthyism is indeed alive and well, not being pushed only by conservatives, but liberals also. Great time for leftists to be alive, I tell you.

[Tiggnutz]

Doesn't Russia run by one central government who is in charge of every fundamental aspect of everything? Communism is an ugly word for socialism but exactly the same thing

The Party that Putin is in is United Russia. Generally speaking, they are seen as a right-wing party, or at the very least, a centrist, catch-all party.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a left-wing party, and while they are not in power, they are the second largest party in the country, which isn't saying much, as Putin's authoritarianism doesn't lend much leeway to parties other than the one he represents.

There to my knowledge there has never been a successful socialist country becuase though the promise of it is enticing it always ends the same way. Who controls the military controls the country and who controls the military the guy with the most money

There's never been an unsuccessful socialist country either. There's never been one at all.

We are saying the same thing it's the same as saying you wanna live in Willy Wonkas chocolate factory or Narnia at the end of the book it's an illusion just a way to transfer wealth