Libhater's Example of Defining Leftist Communism

Libhater

Libhater

Verified User
When you hear the political term 'Progressive Democrat' or 'Progressive Liberal'--you'll now know (thanks to my teaching) that 'Progressive' means the steady rise of every brainwashed, dope smoking, easily led, tuned-out drop out from the sixties that couldn't accept and relate to the current 'establishment', or to our competitive market economy that was fueled by Capitalism. You could include the Kerrys, the Kennedy's, and the Clinton's into the 60's drop out mix that helped start their progressive apprenticeship of attending IVY League Liberal college institutions where there initiation into the world of political science was shaped from the teachings of pin-headed anti-establishment Communist professors like a Noam Chompsky or a Lionell West of Harvard.

The liberals I just mentioned adhere to and fully subscribe to Karl Marx's philosophical theory of creating a 'classless society' where class struggle pit's the proletarian composed of (industrial workers, makers of goods, or unions of today) against the bourgeois or 'Capitalists' (in this case the Republicans, Conservatives, Capitalists, Entrepreneurs, and pro Americas).

Bottom line is that Karl Marx and Democrats of today wanted to or current want to strip all people of their individualism, of their desire to set meaningful goals, of their desire and or capacity to invent, their desire to make unlimited monies, or their desire to climb the ladder, of their desire to succeed in life, or their desire to think for themselves...etc.

So people who vote for a Democrat, are in essence voting for a Marxist
 
Jade Dragon said:
Wow, leftist communism, will you be discussing unicorn alopecia, too?
Click to expand...
Tell or show us how my exact definition of Leftist Communism doesn't fit squarely into today's
Democrat Party. I'll continue to be here in teaching you libs just how out of step you are with
a Conservative-Capitalistic America by revealing how your leftist communist oriented agenda is
the worse thing for our beloved nation.
 
Libhater said:
When you hear the political term 'Progressive Democrat' or 'Progressive Liberal'--you'll now know (thanks to my teaching) that 'Progressive' means the steady rise of every brainwashed, dope smoking, easily led, tuned-out drop out from the sixties that couldn't accept and relate to the current 'establishment', or to our competitive market economy that was fueled by Capitalism. You could include the Kerrys, the Kennedy's, and the Clinton's into the 60's drop out mix that helped start their progressive apprenticeship of attending IVY League Liberal college institutions where there initiation into the world of political science was shaped from the teachings of pin-headed anti-establishment Communist professors like a Noam Chompsky or a Lionell West of Harvard.

The liberals I just mentioned adhere to and fully subscribe to Karl Marx's philosophical theory of creating a 'classless society' where class struggle pit's the proletarian composed of (industrial workers, makers of goods, or unions of today) against the bourgeois or 'Capitalists' (in this case the Republicans, Conservatives, Capitalists, Entrepreneurs, and pro Americas).

Bottom line is that Karl Marx and Democrats of today wanted to or current want to strip all people of their individualism, of their desire to set meaningful goals, of their desire and or capacity to invent, their desire to make unlimited monies, or their desire to climb the ladder, of their desire to succeed in life, or their desire to think for themselves...etc.

So people who vote for a Democrat, are in essence voting for a Marxist
Click to expand...
Your version of Communism is badly dated now. Marx, a short-sighted, non-visionary, typical of the Left, wrote in terms of what he saw going on in the present. As with the Left in general, he ignored and had no understanding of human history.

Marx's version of things was firmly rooted in the middle of the industrial age. It wouldn't have worked in the previous age of enlightenment nor in ancient times. It doesn't work today in the electronics age. The proletariat is and has been replaced by computers and AI. The supposed "workers" Marx wrote at length about are shrinking in number by the day as manufacturing and business automate.

The "Rich" have and likely always will exist within human society and experience. They do so regardless of what economic system is employed. No Communist state has existed where the "Rich" don't still exist within it. The closest you can come to a "classless society" is simply a society where wealth and privilege don't define who you are.

What modern Communists have done in the fact of that reality is find ways to create alternate classes within society to economic ones. CRT does this with race. There are the oppressed races and the privileged ones, sufferers of racism and racists who inflict that suffering on them. But it is done by race not individuals. Another version would be education status. You have those who went to college and those who didn't. Two classes that a modern Communist would pit against each other. To eliminate that class status, everyone needs to be able to go to college they would argue. These are all variants of what Marx did and little more than presentism.

Communism, and its less virulent cousin Socialism won't work simply because both deny the nature of humanity and how human societies work.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Your version of Communism is badly dated now. Marx, a short-sighted, non-visionary, typical of the Left, wrote in terms of what he saw going on in the present. As with the Left in general, he ignored and had no understanding of human history.

Marx's version of things was firmly rooted in the middle of the industrial age. It wouldn't have worked in the previous age of enlightenment nor in ancient times. It doesn't work today in the electronics age. The proletariat is and has been replaced by computers and AI. The supposed "workers" Marx wrote at length about are shrinking in number by the day as manufacturing and business automate.

The "Rich" have and likely always will exist within human society and experience. They do so regardless of what economic system is employed. No Communist state has existed where the "Rich" don't still exist within it. The closest you can come to a "classless society" is simply a society where wealth and privilege don't define who you are.

What modern Communists have done in the fact of that reality is find ways to create alternate classes within society to economic ones. CRT does this with race. There are the oppressed races and the privileged ones, sufferers of racism and racists who inflict that suffering on them. But it is done by race not individuals. Another version would be education status. You have those who went to college and those who didn't. Two classes that a modern Communist would pit against each other. To eliminate that class status, everyone needs to be able to go to college they would argue. These are all variants of what Marx did and little more than presentism.

Communism, and its less virulent cousin Socialism won't work simply because both deny the nature of humanity and how human societies work.
Click to expand...
Oh I could have gone on to present a more current version of today's leftist Marxism, but I do thank you for updating the current demise of the dem party as it continues a a deeper version than that of it's 1960's version.

That OP I posted here was written by me some 30+years ago when I had posted it on some other political forum. Bottom line is that the dem agenda/ideology is still wrapped up in Marxism.
 
Libhater said:
When you hear the political term 'Progressive Democrat' or 'Progressive Liberal'--you'll now know (thanks to my teaching) that 'Progressive' means the steady rise of every brainwashed, dope smoking, easily led, tuned-out drop out from the sixties that couldn't accept and relate to the current 'establishment', or to our competitive market economy that was fueled by Capitalism. You could include the Kerrys, the Kennedy's, and the Clinton's into the 60's drop out mix that helped start their progressive apprenticeship of attending IVY League Liberal college institutions where there initiation into the world of political science was shaped from the teachings of pin-headed anti-establishment Communist professors like a Noam Chompsky or a Lionell West of Harvard.

The liberals I just mentioned adhere to and fully subscribe to Karl Marx's philosophical theory of creating a 'classless society' where class struggle pit's the proletarian composed of (industrial workers, makers of goods, or unions of today) against the bourgeois or 'Capitalists' (in this case the Republicans, Conservatives, Capitalists, Entrepreneurs, and pro Americas).

Bottom line is that Karl Marx and Democrats of today wanted to or current want to strip all people of their individualism, of their desire to set meaningful goals, of their desire and or capacity to invent, their desire to make unlimited monies, or their desire to climb the ladder, of their desire to succeed in life, or their desire to think for themselves...etc.

So people who vote for a Democrat, are in essence voting for a Marxist
Click to expand...
This passage is not factual analysis. It is a politically charged statement that mixes real historical references with distortions, stereotypes, and false generalizations.



1. “Progressive means brainwashed, drug-using, 1960s dropouts”​


Fact check: ❌ False / stereotype


  • “Progressive” in modern U.S. politics refers to:
    • policy positions (e.g., healthcare expansion, climate policy, social welfare, labor rights)
    • not a personality type or generational identity
  • There is no academic or political definitionof “progressive” that includes:
    • drug use
    • “brainwashed” individuals
    • 1960s counterculture exclusively

This is rhetorical stereotyping, not a factual definition.



2. Claim about universities and professors (Noam Chomsky, etc.)​


Fact check: ⚠️ Misleading framing


  • Noam Chomsky is a real academic known for linguistics and political commentary.
  • He is often described as left-leaning or libertarian socialist in some writings, but:
    • he is not a “Marxist indoctrinator”
    • Ivy League universities do not have uniform political teaching agendas
  • “Harvard and Ivy League indoctrination into Marxism” is not supported by evidence.

Universities contain a wide ideological spectrum of faculty, including conservative, liberal, centrist, and libertarian thinkers.



3. Claim: Democrats = Marxists​


Fact check: ❌ False


This is one of the biggest inaccuracies in the passage.


  • The U.S. Democratic Party:
    • operates within a capitalist, market-based system
    • includes centrist, liberal, and progressive wings
    • supports private property, elections, and regulated markets

Marxism definition:​


  • Derived from Karl Marx
  • Advocates (in classical form):
    • abolition of capitalism
    • collective ownership of production
    • classless society through systemic change

➡️ The modern Democratic Party platform does not advocate abolishing capitalism or private ownership, which are core Marxist ideas.


So:


Equating Democrats with Marxists is not accurate in political science terms
Click to expand...


4. Claim: Progressives want to “remove individuality, success, ambition”​


Fact check: ❌ Unsupported generalization


  • Progressive policy debates involve topics like:
    • taxation
    • healthcare access
    • education funding
    • labor protections

There is no evidence-based policy platform aiming to eliminate:


  • ambition
  • entrepreneurship
  • individual success
  • innovation

In fact:


  • Many progressive policies exist in countries with strong innovation and economic mobility (e.g., Scandinavia, Germany, Canada)

So this is a political characterization, not a factual description.



5. Claim: “Voting Democrat = voting for Marxism”​


Fact check: ❌ False equivalence


Voting behavior does not imply endorsement of a single ideology.


  • The Democratic Party includes:
    • moderates
    • liberals
    • progressives
  • Voters choose based on a wide range of issues, not a single ideology

So this is:


a binary framing that does not reflect real political diversity
Click to expand...


Bottom line​


This passage:


  • ❌ misdefines “progressive”
  • ❌ misrepresents academic institutions
  • ❌ incorrectly labels Democrats as Marxists
  • ❌ attributes extreme motives without evidence
  • ⚠️ relies heavily on ideological framing rather than factual claims


Overall assessment​


It is best described as:


political propaganda / opinion rhetoric, not factual political analysis
Click to expand...
 
Grim Reaper said:
This passage is not factual analysis. It is a politically charged statement that mixes real historical references with distortions, stereotypes, and false generalizations.



1. “Progressive means brainwashed, drug-using, 1960s dropouts”​


Fact check: ❌ False / stereotype


  • “Progressive” in modern U.S. politics refers to:
    • policy positions (e.g., healthcare expansion, climate policy, social welfare, labor rights)
    • not a personality type or generational identity
  • There is no academic or political definitionof “progressive” that includes:
    • drug use
    • “brainwashed” individuals
    • 1960s counterculture exclusively

This is rhetorical stereotyping, not a factual definition.



2. Claim about universities and professors (Noam Chomsky, etc.)​


Fact check: ⚠️ Misleading framing


  • Noam Chomsky is a real academic known for linguistics and political commentary.
  • He is often described as left-leaning or libertarian socialist in some writings, but:
    • he is not a “Marxist indoctrinator”
    • Ivy League universities do not have uniform political teaching agendas
  • “Harvard and Ivy League indoctrination into Marxism” is not supported by evidence.

Universities contain a wide ideological spectrum of faculty, including conservative, liberal, centrist, and libertarian thinkers.



3. Claim: Democrats = Marxists​


Fact check: ❌ False


This is one of the biggest inaccuracies in the passage.


  • The U.S. Democratic Party:
    • operates within a capitalist, market-based system
    • includes centrist, liberal, and progressive wings
    • supports private property, elections, and regulated markets

Marxism definition:​


  • Derived from Karl Marx
  • Advocates (in classical form):
    • abolition of capitalism
    • collective ownership of production
    • classless society through systemic change

➡️ The modern Democratic Party platform does not advocate abolishing capitalism or private ownership, which are core Marxist ideas.


So:





4. Claim: Progressives want to “remove individuality, success, ambition”​


Fact check: ❌ Unsupported generalization


  • Progressive policy debates involve topics like:
    • taxation
    • healthcare access
    • education funding
    • labor protections

There is no evidence-based policy platform aiming to eliminate:


  • ambition
  • entrepreneurship
  • individual success
  • innovation

In fact:


  • Many progressive policies exist in countries with strong innovation and economic mobility (e.g., Scandinavia, Germany, Canada)

So this is a political characterization, not a factual description.



5. Claim: “Voting Democrat = voting for Marxism”​


Fact check: ❌ False equivalence


Voting behavior does not imply endorsement of a single ideology.


  • The Democratic Party includes:
    • moderates
    • liberals
    • progressives
  • Voters choose based on a wide range of issues, not a single ideology

So this is:





Bottom line​


This passage:


  • ❌ misdefines “progressive”
  • ❌ misrepresents academic institutions
  • ❌ incorrectly labels Democrats as Marxists
  • ❌ attributes extreme motives without evidence
  • ⚠️ relies heavily on ideological framing rather than factual claims


Overall assessment​


It is best described as:
Click to expand...
I have a question. What POS brain damaged AI program are you using with these posts? It has got to be one of the stupidest AI's out there to give such lame assed answers consistently.

Just curious.
 
Grim Reaper said:
This passage is not factual analysis. It is a politically charged statement that mixes real historical references with distortions, stereotypes, and false generalizations.
Click to expand...


T. A. Gardner said:
I have a question. What POS brain damaged AI program are you using with these posts? It has got to be one of the stupidest AI's out there to give such lame assed answers consistently.

Just curious.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that the Grim Reaper gave an analysis that hit the button and has caused you to short circuit, TA. The part of the American right that spends lots of time here in the Internet fora...is addicted to the kind of intellectual lameness that he pointed out...using AI or not.

Time for the MAGA crew to get use to being shown as intellectual frauds...because they are going to be seeing lots of it in the coming years.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Seems to me that the Grim Reaper gave an analysis that hit the button and has caused you to short circuit, TA. The part of the American right that spends lots of time here in the Internet fora...is addicted to the kind of intellectual lameness that he pointed out...using AI or not.

Time for the MAGA crew to get use to being shown as intellectual frauds...because they are going to be seeing lots of it in the coming years.
Click to expand...
I have given rebuttal to a couple of her uses of that lame assed AI. The answers it gives are, intellectually, the equivalent of an inflatable kiddie wading pool.

I'm not going to waste my time every time she posts one of those lame assed, computer generated, answers up. It isn't her talking, it's the AI. I can't address the AI directly so there's no telling it how wrong or stupid it is. If you can't address the real problem, you can't begin to fix it.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Seems to me that the Grim Reaper gave an analysis that hit the button and has caused you to short circuit, TA. The part of the American right that spends lots of time here in the Internet fora...is addicted to the kind of intellectual lameness that he pointed out...using AI or not.

Time for the MAGA crew to get use to being shown as intellectual frauds...because they are going to be seeing lots of it in the coming years.
Click to expand...
Next influx of complaints: GRIM IS FACT CHECKING EVERYTHING WE SAY!!!

:clinton::thing1:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I have given rebuttal to a couple of her uses of that lame assed AI. The answers it gives are, intellectually, the equivalent of an inflatable kiddie wading pool.

I'm not going to waste my time every time she posts one of those lame assed, computer generated, answers up. It isn't her talking, it's the AI. I can't address the AI directly so there's no telling it how wrong or stupid it is. If you can't address the real problem, you can't begin to fix it.
Click to expand...
AI can be a great help for finding sources and formulating question to illicit new information. Anyone who is using it to scarper from it is wasting everybody's time. It's only a tool to be directed by human intellect.
 
Jake Starkey said:
AI can be a great help for finding sources and formulating question to illicit new information. Anyone who is using it to scarper from it is wasting everybody's time. It's only a tool to be directed by human intellect.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Like Wiki, it's a great starting point but the references should what supports its validity.
 
Grim Reaper said:
This passage is not factual analysis. It is a politically charged statement that mixes real historical references with distortions, stereotypes, and false generalizations.



1. “Progressive means brainwashed, drug-using, 1960s dropouts”​


Fact check: ❌ False / stereotype


  • “Progressive” in modern U.S. politics refers to:
    • policy positions (e.g., healthcare expansion, climate policy, social welfare, labor rights)
    • not a personality type or generational identity
  • There is no academic or political definitionof “progressive” that includes:
    • drug use
    • “brainwashed” individuals
    • 1960s counterculture exclusively

This is rhetorical stereotyping, not a factual definition.



2. Claim about universities and professors (Noam Chomsky, etc.)​


Fact check: ⚠️ Misleading framing


  • Noam Chomsky is a real academic known for linguistics and political commentary.
  • He is often described as left-leaning or libertarian socialist in some writings, but:
    • he is not a “Marxist indoctrinator”
    • Ivy League universities do not have uniform political teaching agendas
  • “Harvard and Ivy League indoctrination into Marxism” is not supported by evidence.

Universities contain a wide ideological spectrum of faculty, including conservative, liberal, centrist, and libertarian thinkers.



3. Claim: Democrats = Marxists​


Fact check: ❌ False


This is one of the biggest inaccuracies in the passage.


  • The U.S. Democratic Party:
    • operates within a capitalist, market-based system
    • includes centrist, liberal, and progressive wings
    • supports private property, elections, and regulated markets

Marxism definition:​


  • Derived from Karl Marx
  • Advocates (in classical form):
    • abolition of capitalism
    • collective ownership of production
    • classless society through systemic change

➡️ The modern Democratic Party platform does not advocate abolishing capitalism or private ownership, which are core Marxist ideas.


So:





4. Claim: Progressives want to “remove individuality, success, ambition”​


Fact check: ❌ Unsupported generalization


  • Progressive policy debates involve topics like:
    • taxation
    • healthcare access
    • education funding
    • labor protections

There is no evidence-based policy platform aiming to eliminate:


  • ambition
  • entrepreneurship
  • individual success
  • innovation

In fact:


  • Many progressive policies exist in countries with strong innovation and economic mobility (e.g., Scandinavia, Germany, Canada)

So this is a political characterization, not a factual description.



5. Claim: “Voting Democrat = voting for Marxism”​


Fact check: ❌ False equivalence


Voting behavior does not imply endorsement of a single ideology.


  • The Democratic Party includes:
    • moderates
    • liberals
    • progressives
  • Voters choose based on a wide range of issues, not a single ideology

So this is:





Bottom line​


This passage:


  • ❌ misdefines “progressive”
  • ❌ misrepresents academic institutions
  • ❌ incorrectly labels Democrats as Marxists
  • ❌ attributes extreme motives without evidence
  • ⚠️ relies heavily on ideological framing rather than factual claims


Overall assessment​


It is best described as:
Click to expand...
If a liberal leads MAGA to water, MAGA will drink its own piss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top