The debate "Modern-day Liberals are Marxist" was started by
October 11, 2015, 12:42 pm.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
bigB posted 18 arguments, Alex posted 30 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 25 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 14 arguments, Sosocratese posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
bigB, Alex, stevenchen, AstroSpace, Dysfunctional, WilliamLewis, AndRea, KicknRush, andrewkorman and 15 visitors agree.
historybuff, zarinshafiqa99, sloanstar1000, PsychDave, Concerned_Liberal, madhusudhan, Sosocratese, invincible_01, Skeetc15, juliette_os, Wookie and 7 visitors disagree.
That is the opposite of what Marx said would happen and the opposite of what we have seen historically. Do you have any grounds for saying that?
nope, I'm saying to go from capitalism to communism you first need to gradually become socialists, then have the revolution.
Having a revolution to change things doesn't always result in things getting better. The American war of independence was supposed to make a better, freer land but it took a long time for women or the slaves to see an improvement. They were fighting to be free of an oppressive government, then proceeded to continue to oppress the natives. Revolutions don't always fix everything for everyone and often just result in a different group of people running the show. The Soviet Union had terrible working conditions under communism too, but they are still one of the first things people think of when discussing the subject.
Can you point to any nation in history that has gradually turned from capitalist to communist?
China is communist, yet has some of the worst worker conditions. why did they have a revolution started by bad worker conditions, and then keep them. it would be like the us after the revolutionary war creating a monarchy.
you've missed the point entirely. Marx said that it would go from capitalism straight to communism. that was the point. that the ruling elite would resist change until the need for it built up so much they were washed away like a dam bursting during a flood. communism doesn't happen gradually. it happens fast and violent because the rich and powerful treat their workers like crap. which is exactly what you propose to keep doing. so if you got your way you would end up with communism (or facism) you can only resist change for so long. and if you do then the change will come violently.
do need a violent revolution from socialism to communism, but to go from a rebublic to communism is too big, so you need to first become socialism. Socialism is gradual, and then bang revolution, communism. so Marxists today are trying to slowly turn us socialism.
You criticized my perceived lack of knowledge of Marxism then exposed your own. Even Marx believed that communism would be the result of revolution. Your idea that it would happen gradually is not seen in history or theory. Marx believed that the ruling class would repress the working class causing tension which would result in revolution. I will admit it has been quite a while since I read anything by Marx, but I have read several translated articles he wrote as well as the Communist Manifesto. Have you actually read any of his works? If so, why do you not seem to understand his ideas. If not, why would you try to use that as a criticism of others?
your interpretation is flawed. communism almost never grows slowly. it is almost always a violent break with the previous system. it isn't that a country slowly gets more socialist and then one day its communist. it's that the ruling government ignores or suppresses its own people. the people get more and more upset by this and look for an extreme solution to the problem. communist governments don't happen because governments get too socialist. they happen because authoritarian or elitist forces ignore the good of the people. if you continue with the way you want things to go you are making communism more likely, not less.
Ok, so tell me what Karl Marx wrote about. I'm being led to believe you haven't read any of his works and have only looked up definitions.
You're right, some have gone to Communism without a violent revolution, but many of them have gone through violent revolution in the name of socialization. Communism, as Lenin renamed his party, killed millions of people in order to enforce his ideology. He started with the peasants but inevitably killed millions of them.
You say it's fear but it's following the political history of our time. Communism started in many countries through revolution which took time to develop. The rise doesn't happen overnight, Socialism/Marxism has been around for about 150 years or so. Many of these modern countries have taken on Socialism slowly and are inevitably heading toward Marxism. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (a known supporter of Socialism) walk hand in hand with the Communist Party of America. Have you not looked into it?
That is a very biased and flawed look at history. Almost all countries have some socialist programs, and most have far more than the US. Very few have gone to communism, and none without either outside influence or a revolution. So far, the only people I have heard suggesting that a revolution night be needed in the US are Republicans who fear where the nation is headed rather than Democrats trying to get there.
OK, you're right the government shouldn't control industry, or any other job in a country. But communism slowly evolves through years of socialization. It started in Russia with a violent revolution and happened violently in many other countries. Following history we can decipher that eventually these socialistic countries fall more into Socialism and follow the pretext of communism (marxism/leninism)
and no one is saying the government should control all industry. therefore there are no Marxists. well there are still some loonies who believe in communism, but they are extremists and they certainly haven't been elected anything.
he's saying that unless government completely controls all industry it isn't Marxism.
OK, I'm kinda confused on what you're trying to say. I guess you're saying that socialization of a country only happens when industry is socialized?
Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
From this definition we can infer that government must have ownership and control distribution of service in order for something to fall under the umbrella of socialized industry. You gave failed to prove that government distributes services and you have failed to prove that government owns the industry. You can't make a claim of socialized anything without first proving that the parameters are met. You have also not provided any proof of your allegations and have thus committed a logical fallacy (error) known as the fallacy of assertion. So please backup your assertions or I will dismiss them as such.
You don't seem to understand the difference between government run/owned and government regulated. The ACA is a government regulation of the market. It does not place health care under the ownership of the government. In order for it to be considered socialized the government would have to own the insurance industry, it would also have to own the Healthcare facilities and dictate the salary, availability, and access to providers. Obamacare does none of that.
The ACA is much more like food stamps, building codes, regulations on food safety etc... They all guarantee a certain level of quality of service. That's all. The ACA also does not provide everyone with insurance.
You're claim that Obama care doesn't allow you to pick your own doctors is simply false. Please show me in the law where it says the government will decide your provider. You can't because there is no such provision. The Healthcare provider network you can choose from is negotiated by your insurance company a private entity. They make deals with certain organizations, facilities, and doctors for discounted rates and then place those providers in their network. This is exactly how it was done before Obamacare. For you to have any hope of winning this portion of the argument, you must point out exactly how the government controls your access to providers rather than the private insurance company.
You must also show government ownership of the Healthcare industry not just regulation of an industry. The two are very different. The definition of socialized industry you provided is also wrong.
so Obama care us not run by the goverment?
there you go again wanting to lower the us to be like other countries.
You are twisting things into the shape you want to fit your opinion. Insurance companies are not owned by the government, they are private businesses. That means that it is not Marxist. Beyond even that basic flaw, socialized medicine does not indicate Marxism. Almost all developed nations have some kind of health care system. Are all other developed nations communist nations?
Under Obama care you can't pick your doctor they tell you.
Obama care is run by the goverment "a goverment regulated system" You must have health insurance in the US. that is the law. that covers the "for all" part. Taxes pay for people to have Obama care "by means derived from taxation"
By the definition you provided Obama care is not socialized medicine. Under the Aca, the government does not provide health care for all. It simply subsidizes heath insurance for some. The majority of the populous must still pay for their own insurance. There is no single payer system. Even if there was, it still wouldn't be socialized health care. Since hospitals and providers are still private, the best you can hope to argue is that socialist ideals were used to frame the ACA.
You also seem to be misinformed about the ACA. the ACA doesn't tell you which doctors you can and can't see. Your private insurance dictates that. The only real influence the ACA has on the care you receive is that it requires insurance policies to cover certain things. Networks of providers are still negotiated by private industry just like they were before ACA.
The government also doesn't negotiate rates, it doesn't regulate which insurance company you choose, which level of insurance you choose etc...
In short, it socialized the Healthcare industry as much as food stamps and the FDA socialized the food industry.
Again, please show me how this constitutes a socialization of an industry.
A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation. -dictionary definition of socialized medicine.
Sound like something familiar to you.
Obama care to my knowledge is run by the goverment. under these laws taxes go to healthcare, patients cannot choose their own doctors under Obama care,
Either you are wilfully misrepresenting your argument or you don't know what socializing of an industry means. The health care system has in no way been socialized. Socialization means that the industry is completely operated by the government. If any private industry is involved it is NOT a socialized industry.
The health care system is still very much a private industry. I don't know how you could possibly claim that it has been socialized unless you are being dishonest or completely lacking the knowledge to debate this issue. Hospitals are still privately owned, insurances are still privately owned, doctors are still able to practice in their own clinics, etc... So please show me where the industry has been socialized.
You said Marxist want to socialize the industry. Some liberals have admitted they want to do this, Obama has not but he already has said he is in favor of socialism(step x) and has successfully socialized the health care industry. I think on a few years, if we get another president like Obama you will admit to marxism. But then it will be too late.
You're saying one person does x, a different person does y so they must be planning z. that isn't evidence, its fear. you have no evidence of Marxism. socialism is a very different set of beliefs.
Marx said xyz and Obama is doing x, other liberals are doing y, what is going to happen next? well if you follow the pattern the completion of y and the implement of z. Obama has already socialized the health care industry, other liberals have called for the socialization of the oil industry. Just because Obama has not done some of y and z yet doesn't mean he will not. Actually the pattern suggests that he will, or his follower will.
Marxism's most defining characteristic is the socialization of industry and resources. You can't say that liberals are Marxists, if liberals don't believe in the socialization of industry. As long as one advocates for private industry, one cannot, by definition, be a Marxist. The only arguments that @Alex and @BigB are making are a special case of the slippery slope argument. Basically you guys are claiming that because Marx said x, y, and z, and because certain ideals of the progressive movement are in line with x, y, or z, that this indeed proof that liberal must then be Marxists and that because Marx claimed that x,y, and z are pillars on the road to Marxism, that if one implements x,y, and z that Marxism is inevitable.
By now it should be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of logic that this is a poor argument. It proposes an inevitability of Marxism simply because progressive ideals come to conclusions which are described by Marx. Yet, these conclusion come with an absence of the core principles which define Marxism. The lack of a connection to the core principles of Marxism is why the slippery slope arguments by @Alex and @BigB fail. If the core principles of liberals aren't aligned with the core principles of Marxist philosophy, then you can't make the argument that the political conclusion drawn by both will be the same. It is simply an error in logic.
I've given points on the economic stand point of socialism and the "hand in hand" of the Communist Party of America and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (socialistic ideology, a.k.a. Communism) and they want more of an argument.... well to say the least, I'm ready. I hope they have Google ready to look up what they believe and to "fact" check any argument
Honestly I've begun to love Liberal's in the fact that they ignore history and consider themselves intellectually superior if you don't believe in their ideology
Alright fair point; if you look at what is happening in this country we have become more socialistic society then people want to believe: nationalization of banks and so forth. I honestly believe if Biden doesn't run for president then Sanders will get the nomination and eventually win the presidency and bring more socialism which will lead to communism. Our current president has admitted to being "friends" with Marxist
I don't think historybuff knows that Marxism does not happen overnight and that it is very gradual. Also marxism evolves from socialism, socialism is what Obama wants, if he gets socialism what will he do next, well look at the steps in marxism. Obama will not achieve this in his 1 year lefy, but if another democrat like Obama is elected then watch out.
Firstly, who is "him"?. Secondly, when the nazi party began it was a socialistic party, which evolved into fascism
First off fascism is pretty much the opposite of socialism. it is politically opposite to Marxism. Marx believed that socialism would inevitably lead to communism. but history has proven him wrong. his theories are outdated and largely disproven. Socialism has been modernized alot since then.
What I understand is that you say all developed nations believe in a form of socialism. However, it is not socialism. The US does have programs that do help on a social level but it is not socialism
I'm currently reading LENIN, STALIN, AND HITLER; what I have gotten from reading so far is that socialism eventually leads to either fascism or communism
According to Marx, history progresses through five stages closely tied to economic conditions: early forms of human community, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and international communism. Social revolution is expected in developed nations when capitalism reached a crisis that can not be resolved within the prevailing economic conditions. Marx called it a socialistic utopia of one class, one economic and political psudeo-scientific philosophy. Taking from the bourgeois and giving to the proletariat. Which is associated with what the extreme left is doing in the name of socialism. You can make an argument and say that a true Marxist society has never existed because for Marxism to work it has to derive from a capitalistic government. As the examples I have given before ("opinions" for the liberals) it showed steps that have been taken towards a socialistic society. Communism comes from the idea of socialism, much like fascism comes from socialism. These socialistic ideas that liberals have will bring us to a communistic state of a "classless socialistic utopia". It sounds ok in theory but in reality has never worked nor will work
The word freedom has been so abused by the right wing that it doesn't mean anything any more. you think that caring for people less fortunate that yourself is somehow an attack on your freedom. you think that protecting the weak is attacking your freedom. bottom line is unless you are free to crap on anyone you want it isn't freedom.
So you want to be like all other countries, you don't want to have freedom, be able to keep your money if your rich, and let the lazy get your money. You want to take away the desire for success.
Pretty much all developed states accept that some level of socialism is required in a modern society. socialist isn't an insult.
Democrats even admit Obama is socialist
I don't think most of you understand
Marxism. You should really understand the differences between progressive ideology, democratic socialism, and Marxism.....how exactly is Obama a Marxist? What has he done to socialize industry? That is the core of Marxism. If you can't show that he is actively trying to socialize Industry then you can't say he's a Marxist.
right I agree Obama is making us lose freedoms and turn us Marxist
You have more prisoners than any other developed nation. How does that show freedom? You advocate religious oppression of anyone who does not follow your beliefs, where is the freedom in that? You invade other nations and destroy their economies, leadership, and then declare it a victory and leave a power vacuum as to leave leading to religious extremists seizing power, in what way does that spread freedom? Freedom is a buzzword in the US that has lost all meaning.
The us is the one of the only country with all of our freedoms, you don't like that do you, you want us to be like England(we broke away from them to get freedom) and now you want america to be like the country we broke away from.
That is why people like Obama are trying to help keep people with the bare minimum to survive, to avoid an attempt at a revolution like Cuba. Obama's policies are not extreme socialism, they are more basic than almost all developed nations. Compare your health care system to Britain, or Canada and you will see that it is still incredibly restricted. Obama's policies would be conservative in most nations, it is only in the US that they seem extremely socialist.
How's that working over in Cuba? We do need to give money to the poor, but not to Obama voting lazy people who sit around taking welfare I a working money making man payed for. Socialism makes people not want to succeed because they will get the same as those lazy people.
in less extreme socialism us successful people will get more money percent taken away. Why punish the successfull, I donate to charity
Have you seriously been arguing this whole time without actually checking what marxism is? And yes, communism is directly based on the ideas of marx. Taxing those who have far more than they could possibly need in order to feed people who are starving is not marxism. it is socialism. You really don't seem to be grasping the concept. Socialism is accepted in varying levels by almost every single developed nation. People who aren't total dicks realize that their wealth in dependent on the people below them. They realize that these people should not be abused and mistreated. It is thinking like yours that created marxist ideologies. Governments made no effort to protect people. Companies abused them by paying too little working 80 hours a week and having no worker safety. And god forbid you get sick because you'd get fired and die. It was this treatment that spawns poor people hating the wealthy. It was this treatment that created communist states. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why cuba is comunist? its because the american backed dictator of cuba treated his people like crap. They eventually got fed up and overthrew him. If you don't protect your people, then why should the people protect you?
next he will take other stuff from the rich.
so marxism is like communist socialism. Obama also wants to take from the rich, and make the upper class lower. Obama is doing this slowly first by taking money from the rich, giving handouts to the unworking lazy poor, and forcing is to have goverment healthcare.
Marxists want to forcibly take all wealth and means of production, farms factories etc. These would then be redistributed to all people equally. This would be done in a violent revolution which would destroy the upper class.
It has already been explained.
please tell me quickly what you think Marxism is. apparently what I thought it is is wrong.
You have yet to offer any evidence of this beyond a single, out of context quote that does not in any way demonstrates Marxist views.
Obama is like a Christian who is in the KKK. he is extreme. as I've said before most liberals are not Marxist but Obama is.
Marxism is to Democrats as fascism is to Republicans. Both of the parties are moderate and the others are extreme ends of the political spectrum. To say that shared positions means they are moving toward the extreme is a false conclusion that is not supported by any historical evidence. Being socialist is not the same as being Marxist any more than being Christian means you are a member of the KKK. The KKK is a very extreme group within Christianity that almost all Christians understand to be way too extreme. Marxism is a socialist view that almost all socialist parties understand to be far too extreme.
What do you two think Marxism is because you say it isn't socialism? also democrats want Way more funding for things then rebublicans we want a small government.
But you have ignored all evidence that they are not Marxist. At the superficial level, there are some similarities. But at the same level the Republicans could be called Marxist as they believe that there are some social programs that should be government funded. We have explained that difference to you and explained the distinction between the two ideologies. Unless you have some new evidence, we have debunked your evidence.
I've explained how all your "marxist" arguments are actually socialist. You repeatedly misinterpreting what a marxist is does not reinforce your point. I'll see if i can dumb this down enough for you. If they arent trying to forcibly take all wealth then it isn't marxism. No one is saying that.
okay now I have told you what Obama has said, and how it is what Marxists say. You ignore this because you cannot even consider the great Obama being Marxists, so everything I say is wrong.
You don't listen to people who are 1. Catholics 2. conservative rebublicans
My primary source of news is fox, because they are the best and I know someone who reports on fox. I also will when preparing for a debate, or writing a paper look at the other sides views, this is nessary to succeed.
you're out of your element donny
You're just a broken record aren't you? you have absolutely no evidence that your opinion is correct. there is no evidence that they are Marxists. But you think that they want to be, despite the fact that nothing they have said suggests that. What they have done and said is socialism. And pretty well all modern states realize that a certain level of socialism is required. I'm guessing you don't really read anything not written by someone from fox news because your opinion is just fear mongering with absolutely no evidence.
Who would have thought the biggest threat to america would be our own president?
the liberals are going down that path slowly, as to trick people into things they are regular, most democrats and Americans in general are not smart and do not notice the small stuff that adds up.
I certainly do not blame illegal imagrants for everything, I blame 1. Obama 2. terrists 3. democrats 4. illegals.
Sorry for the autocorrect.
The sentence should have read "It means that there are moderate positions of extremist philosophies."
And the Republicans are trying to do the early stages of what the Nazis did. They are blaming a single group for societies problems (illegal immigrants), they are creating a national image of us versus them with the International community (war in Afghanistan and the Middle East). This in no way means that they will follow that example or that they are "early stage Nazis". It m and that there are moderate positions of extremist philosophies. You are using a slippery slope argument where one does not apply. The mission statement of the Democratic party is very difficult from a Marxist statement and if they tried to proceed down that path they would likely lose the majority of their supporters.
"A Marxist would say the wealth should be taken from the rich and distributed to the poor" Obama also wants to spread the riches money around to the poor. He wants super high taxes on the rich, and to raise the job payment of the poor.
Obama wants a HUGE goverment. Marxist want the government to be huge to take over production. If the goverment gets as big as Obama wants the government will take over stuff like production. (they already took over health care)
Marxism is not a one day thing it takes a while, as you can see Obama is trying to do what a Marxist at an early stage would do.
Alright let's go through your similarities. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it?s good for everybody" -Obama. That doesn't mean he is a marxist. At most you could say that is socialist. A Marxist wouldn't say to spread the wealth around, he would say the proletariat should rise up and take the means of production.
You say The Communist Party of America and the Congressional Progressive Caucus share the same goal. 1) defeat right-wing "extremism". 2) implement socialism in the United States. Socialism is an extremely broad term. It covers anything from paying to send children to school to the seizure and redistribution of wealth. Its like saying someone is a conservative. There is a HUGE area of opinion under that one term. Saying both are socialist doesn't actually mean anything.
Most modern states have government provided health care. Everyone else sees this as common sense. Its pretty much just Americans who oppose it for some reason.
Nationalization and a proletariat revolt are not even close to the same thing. Alot of modern states have certain industries that are nationalized. I'm not saying nationalization is a good or bad thing. There are examples of both good and bad coming from nationalization. It is not however a Marxist Idea.
Income equality is not a marxist idea either. Obama wants the lower and middle class income to grow proportionately to the wealthy. As it stands the income gap is getting bigger every year. CEOs and investment bankers (some of whom were responsible for the crash) make millions while people struggle to feed their children working 60 hours a week on minimum wage. A marxist would say that all the wealth should be taken from the rich and distributed equally. Wanting wealth to grow in a more equal way is a socialist idea, not marxist. This is starting to get long so i'll cut to point. Socialism is not marxism. They have similar principles, the well being of the people. But they have very different methods of taking care of the people.
we have given similarities, now give me some diffferences between Marxism and liberals.
Since you asked I will comment, but I don't have much to add that hadn't already been said.
Liberals are not, by definition Marxist. They do share same of the same positions on specific issues, but all parties do. Most Republicans agree that we need to fund elementary schools, which is a social program. The difference is in what programs they feel should be funded and how much. Liberals tend to want more social programs, conservatives less, but neither wants Marxism.
Historybuff is saying that your arguments are from ignorance because you are pointing to a few similarities between groups as evidence that the groups are identical. That is a flawed way of looking at this since the groups you are equating have fundamental differences in the ideologies.
There are a spectrum of political beliefs ranging from anarchist, to libertarian, to Republican, to Democrat, to communist. Each share some positions with other groups, but each is fundamentally different. Blue and green are both at the same end of the color spectrum, but they are distinct colours.
When you argue with a dictionary definition you are going to lose. they don't tend to change because you want them to.
I'm afraid there isn't room to disagree. you are by all available definition wrong.
Ok, I'm done arguing with you on this subject; all I can is, agree to disagree on this matter and I leave it at that. Have a good day sir and I'll see you on the other debate floors
Please read what Marxism actually is. until you understand the words you use you don't make sense. liberals are socialist. yeah probably. there might even be some Marxists out there. but I've never heard any evidence Obama or any other elected official is one. When a Obama wants the people of America to rise up and nationalize every company in america, yeah that's Marxism. wanting to keep people in homes and fed is not.
I compared The Communist Party of America with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I have to ask, do you know what the Congressional Progressive Caucus is and who is apart of it?
Haha, go ahead if that helps you feel better. You ignore examples and take it as an "opinion". It's hard to argue when the other side can't make a valid argument. I wish Dave was here to rebuttal, so we can have an educated debate
Nothing that any modern politician has done is Marxist. you have yet to come up with a single example of Marxism. you don't seem to understand what Marxism is. you confuse it with any left leaning idea at all. you are just trying to use it as a slur. should I just start calling you a fascist until you can prove to me you aren't?
Would you like me to form an argument against the Republican party, and the Libertarian party. Would that help? I define myself as a conservative, however the Republican party has royally pissed me off and gone against their own ideology
How is reading both sides and forming one's on concensus ignorant? How is listening and learning both points of view ignorant? You keep saying that it's ignorant but have yet to format an argument to rebuttal it. Please make a valid argument instead of calling ignorance
the combined ignorance is painful. calling liberals Marxists is the same as me calling all right wing people (religious people, Republicans, etc.) fascists. you're right of centre so you must be a fascist. that is the argument you are making. Marxism is a very specific set of beliefs that no major political party in North America espouse. wanting everyone to be able to eat and live with dignity may be socialism. but socialism is not Marxism. they are very different. all you are doing is proving that you don't a actually know what these things mean and that you are copying heavily biased news organizations.
and "shared prosperity"
Both parties believe in "free health care, free housing (beyond a decent house), free education through the college level and increasing welfare programs. I wonder who will pay for all this "free" stuff?
Both parties ultimate goal is to keep people dependent on government and hold everyone "equally" at the same level.
I have to ask; if the government gives you everything regardless of employment status, why be motivated to find a job? why try and start a business?
By definition you say you are different but both parties are virtually the same
I agree with everything you said BigB.
Obama wanting ILLEGAL immigrants to have as much money as I have for being illegal, and wanting them to vote is a step closer to socialism and therefore marxism.
You are right Sloan, I do watch Fox News and I also watch CNN; I believe in hearing both sides of an argument in order to come to my own consensus (and just hearing one side and assuming I know everything *cough*)
The Communist Party of America and the Congressional Progressive Caucus share the same goal. 1) defeat right-wing "extremism". 2) implement socialism in the United States
The Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Communist Party of America both hate capitalism and love the idea of income equality (redistribution of wealth). Both call for nationalization of banks, railroads, industries and universal health care and the expansion of government. Obama has been a proponent of income equality; the government has expanded under Obama than any US president in history.
The liberals and communists do not like corporation's and wealthy citizens, both want more government control of capital and industry. Both believe that the one's who succeed financially should pay a heavy progressive income tax and "level the playing field" for income equality. Both supported the Occupy Wall Street movement against the wealthy and corporations (capitalism). Obama (and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) constantly say wealthy American's should "pay their fair share" in the name of fairness
First of all you are reading WAY more into that quote than he actually said. the quote itself is not Marxist. secondly immigration policy is not Marxist.
that statement by Obama does not mean he wants people to afford stuff. if he said something like "people need to stop sitting around taking welfare and get to work" that would be wanting people to afford stuff. What Obama means by spreading wealth around is he wants the rich to be FORCED to give to the lazy poor, so the lazy have the same as the hard working rich. Obama also is in favor of letting illegal immigrants legally come into america get our jobs, vote and get money. He does not care that they are illegal.
did you look up what a Marxist believes or are you repeating what you heard on fox news? because you are wrong.
Marxism is a plan to destroy capitalism and create socialism.
That's not a Marxist statement. if you think that it is please read what a Marxist actually is. wanting everyone to be able to afford things is not evidence of Marxism.
?I think when you spread the wealth around, it?s good for everybody" -Obama
Obama to my knowledge has never said anything Marxist. if you want to claim he is, and by extension other liberals, please provide evidence. otherwise your oppinons aren't worth anything since to my knowledge you aren't an expert on Marxism.
Some are (Obama), but some are not. it is pretty even, but most liberals are not smart and follow Obama blindly. The smarter liberals are Marxist because they agree with Obama 100%, and know what Obama is doing.
There's Marxism as in "I own a dictionary" Marxism, then there's the "I get all my information from FOX news" kind of Marxism. I think big is using the latter.
What exactly do you think Marxism is?
Umm not in any way. The government regulating industries is not a Marxist idea. governments owning and running industry is Marxist. class warfare is Marxist. the government looking out for the nation is just common sense. some regulation is necessary. even you would agree. for example companies shouldn't dump toxic waste next to people's homes. so no I have in no way advocated Marxist ideas.
I don't have to make an argument, by what you just said. You have admitted to embracing the idea of Marxism
You are going to have to make an argument for this because by definition you are wrong. I can't argue against something which on the face of it isn't true.