Obama's Great Leap Forward

[NightHawkeye]

As I've been sayin'... Progressive is forward thinking and conservative is regressive backward thinking. In West's case the McCarthyism he is exhibiting is of the 1950's. That makes it backwards.

TRUTH is never backwards, Stamperben.

That's just the truth.

 

[stamperben]

Not all progressives are forward thinkers, just like not all conservatives are regressive thinkers.

But even if they were, not all forward thinking is good and not all regressive thinking is bad.

Well, I'd rather look to the future and work to the dreams and goals that might help the human condition rather then look back to the 19th century and want the conditions we had then. But that's just me. And many others.

 

[stamperben]

TRUTH is never backwards, Stamperben.

That's just the truth.

HYPE is just that, hype. Kinda like what you get in the late night used car commercials. Do you go buy a used car from them based on their hype?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Well, I'd rather look to the future and work to the dreams and goals that might help the human condition rather then look back to the 19th century and want the conditions we had then. But that's just me. And many others.

So ... I'll rephrase my question. Exactly, how has Marxism helped the human condition?

Please provide specific examples. Thanks.

 

[stamperben]

So ... I'll rephrase my question. Exactly, how has Marxism helped the human condition?

Please provide specific examples. Thanks.

What's this fixation with Marx? I didn't mention him and you'd never asked me in this thread, so how could you "rephrase" a question?

 

[RETS]

According to Lenin, Marxism is comprised of three main source components:

...materialist philosophy, critique of political economy and socialist politics.

Specifically, the materialism Obama does seem to have- Based upon his own spending habits, to say nothing about his wife's shopping sprees. Interestingly enough, though, this is not the materialism Marx/Lenin spoke of.

The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter.

While Obama does seem to go for the eternally evolving bit, the fact of the matter is he's not fond of revealing information or "knowledge" about anything. Moreover, he has not really done anything that contradicts himself; in other words, he does not believe in the Marx philosophy of contradiction, E.G. dialectics.


Obama, when on the campaign trail, has done quite a bit of economical criticism. Not so much this this time around, because the reigns have been firmly in his hands, but the critique is still there. Marxist critique literally looks like this:

Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.

By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.

I.E., the true Marxist looks to undermine Capitalism- But by destroying large companies, industries, etc., and boosting the individual worker and small business. Obama, however, has done just the opposite; enacting laws that make it harder to be in business for oneself.

The claim that Obama is a Marxist is looking shaky.


Now we move on to socialist politics. There can be no doubt that Obama is socialist, correct? Well, let's see what the Marxist ideology has to say about this aspect.

The genius of Marx lies in his having been the first to deduce from this the lesson world history teaches and to apply that lesson consistently. The deduction he made is the doctrine of the class struggle.

People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Champions of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realise that every old institution, how ever barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is kept going by the forces of certain ruling classes. And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can—and, owing to their social position, must—constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle.

Marx’s philosophical materialism alone has shown the proletariat the way out of the spiritual slavery in which all oppressed classes have hitherto languished. Marx’s economic theory alone has explained the true position of the proletariat in the general system of capitalism.

Now, Obama has certainly set in motion what needs to take place for there to be "class struggle;" there is no denying that! However, he does not encourage criticism of his policies- Marxism encourages the seeking out of ulterior motives and "interest of class" behind everything. A true Marxist holds the philosophy and theory of Marx above everything; but Obama has lifted himself to the messianic, not Marx.

Obama, in short, is no Marxist. So what is he? Some might say that he is Socialist, and indeed, he has done things which can be described as "socialist." However, when one looks at the more common definition of socialism:

Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.
Socialism means production to satisfy human needs, not as under capitalism, for sale and profit.
All persons elected to any post in the socialist government, from the lowest to the highest level, will be directly accountable to the rank and file. They will be subject to removal at any time that a majority of those who elected them decide it is necessary.

Obama does not want accountability- Not for those who support him, and certainly not for himself. He does not want a system wherein he is able to be removed anytime a majority decides; he has enough issues with the concept of free elections four years apart! Obama's not working for a true socialist society...

Socialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.

If Obama is not Marxist OR Socialist, but seems to implement certain aspects of both, what the heck is he?!

It was suggested that he is Facist, so let us look at that claim.

MERITOCRACY OR TIMOCRACY:
The degree of which men and women manifest honor and merit in the service of their country is determinant of their place in civil society.

SACRIFICE:
"Fascism now and always believes in holiness and heroism, that is to say in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect."

NATIONALISM:
"Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." OR "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country!"

COOPERATION OR STATE CORPORATISM:
Though private property and free trade must be upheld and defended, business ultimately serves the greater good of the state, and must be guided towards JUST and NOBLE purposes.

VIRTUE:
If there is such a thing as "good" and "evil", if there is such a thing as a right and a wrong way, is the right way always the popular way, the way a majority votes? No! Usually not. The majority votes the easy way. The path of least resistance, and is thus exploited by the current elite. Fascism alone has the moral courage to do the right thing. For the state, no matter what. Above all a Fascist believes in virtue and will thus tell you the truth, and not just what you want to hear! Truth, courage, integrity!

It would seem, by these points of platform, that Obama fails at Fascism as well. He does not believe in private property or free trade- He has stated his opinions on free trade many times in the past, as well as in his books. He appointed not one, but two SCotUS judges who have publicly stated that the concept of "private property" is "an antiquated notion." Moreover, he fails the "sacrifice" section, because he is nearly entirely motivated by economic wants and desires.

So... What is he?

Communist is the next cry, usually, so we'll look at that.

...communism is the idea that everyone in a given society receives equal shares of the benefits derived from labor. Communism is designed to allow the poor to rise up and attain financial and social status equal to that of the middle-class landowners. In order for everyone to achieve equality, wealth is redistributed so that the members of the upper class are brought down to the same financial and social level as the middle class. Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state. In other words, no one can own his or her own business or produce his or her own goods because the state owns everything.

Communism took the ideas of Marxism and Socialism and instituted an additional feature: State control, an element of Fascism. The idea, of course, is that the state itself is fair and balanced and wonderful, giving equally to everyone. However, to achieve that dream... Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. Here are the three phases for Communism:

1. A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government.
   
2. A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen's personal choices -- including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.
   
3. Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. ...[E]veryone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top.

There are also tenets of a Communist society. See if you recognize any of these in some of the things which have been enacted over the past term:

• Central banking system
• Government controlled education
• Government controlled labor
• Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles
• Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
• Total abolition of private property
• Property rights confiscation
• Heavy income tax on everyone
• Elimination of rights of inheritance
• Regional planning

While Obama does not even fit the idea of Communism to a T, it is a far closer fit than claiming a pure Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist stance.

 

[drjean]

Well, regardless of whether we use terms like Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Mr Obama's actions speak loudly (and often oppositely than his speech) for a wild ride on the socialist spectrum.

And regardless of his politics... he is most definitely a sociopath. But we've lived through them before...we just need to not reelect them!

 

[Nabobalis]

Well, regardless of whether we use terms like Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Mr Obama's actions speak loudly (and often oppositely than his speech) for a wild ride on the socialist spectrum.

Well either he is a socialist who has enacted socialist policies (which he hasn't) or he happens to be a center right politician much like Romney.

And regardless of his politics... he is most definitely a sociopath. But we've lived through them before...we just need to not reelect them!

Any evidence he is a sociopath? That is quite the accusation.

 

[Redac]

Just a couple comments.

Specifically, the materialism Obama does seem to have- Based upon his own spending habits, to say nothing about his wife's shopping sprees. Interestingly enough, though, this is not the materialism Marx/Lenin spoke of.

Indeed, the materialism spoken of in Marxist thought is historical materialism. Very simply put, it's the idea that the non-economic aspects of a given society are formed and shaped by that society's economic activity. I haven't seen any indication that Obama follows this particular view of history.

I.E., the true Marxist looks to undermine Capitalism- But by destroying large companies, industries, etc., and boosting the individual worker and small business. Obama, however, has done just the opposite; enacting laws that make it harder to be in business for oneself.

I'd say Marxism isn't necessarily looking to boost small business in the way one might do so in this system. The small-business owner is generally part of what's called the petit bourgeoisie. They generally buy the labor of members of the working class, but don't have quite the same kind of control as the true bourgeoisie. These kinds of small businesses would have to be turned into collective-based shops; no one person gets to own that business and exploit workers' labor.

Someone more versed in Marxist theory might go into more detail about it, but that's generally how I understand it.

The claim that Obama is a Marxist is looking shaky.

Indeed it is.

Now, Obama has certainly set in motion what needs to take place for there to be "class struggle;" there is no denying that! However, he does not encourage criticism of his policies- Marxism encourages the seeking out of ulterior motives and "interest of class" behind everything. A true Marxist holds the philosophy and theory of Marx above everything; but Obama has lifted himself to the messianic, not Marx.

In what way?

Obama, in short, is no Marxist.

Obama does not want accountability- Not for those who support him, and certainly not for himself. He does not want a system wherein he is able to be removed anytime a majority decides; he has enough issues with the concept of free elections four years apart! Obama's not working for a true socialist society...

More importantly, I'd say, he's not attempting to put every industry in the country under the collective ownership of the working class.

It would seem, by these points of platform, that Obama fails at Fascism as well. He does not believe in private property or free trade- He has stated his opinions on free trade many times in the past, as well as in his books. He appointed not one, but two SCotUS judges who have publicly stated that the concept of "private property" is "an antiquated notion." Moreover, he fails the "sacrifice" section, because he is nearly entirely motivated by economic wants and desires.

Obama is about as far from Fascism as he is from Marxism.

So... What is he?

Communist is the next cry, usually, so we'll look at that.



Communism took the ideas of Marxism and Socialism and instituted an additional feature: State control, an element of Fascism. The idea, of course, is that the state itself is fair and balanced and wonderful, giving equally to everyone. However, to achieve that dream... Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. Here are the three phases for Communism:



There are also tenets of a Communist society. See if you recognize any of these in some of the things which have been enacted over the past term:

• Central banking system
• Government controlled education
• Government controlled labor
• Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles
• Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
• Total abolition of private property
• Property rights confiscation
• Heavy income tax on everyone
• Elimination of rights of inheritance
• Regional planning

My impression seems to be that these are aspects of the transitional period proposed in the Marxist-Leninist current of communism. Hoyt's insistence that there must be some sort of totalitarian dictatorship, however, is not true. That may be what tends to happen, but again, I don't believe that's what is meant to happen. The Soviet Union was not the perfect workers' state many envision.

I also dislike her use of the word "utopia". I haven't seen too many communists that think their vision of the world is a true utopia. Hopeful, perhaps, but not really a utopia.

Her third point is flat out wrong. The idea of communism is that, as the people live under this socialist government for long enough and have managed to run their own affairs (through workers' councils, collectives, assemblies, etc.), the state is supposed to whither away, leaving a stateless, classless society. The end goal of communism is to get rid of the state, not leave it in place.

While Obama does not even fit the idea of Communism to a T, it is a far closer fit than claiming a pure Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist stance.

The furthest left you could classify Obama without sounding completely ignorant is as a social democrat. That's a real stretch, though.

 

[RETS]

I'd say Marxism isn't necessarily looking to boost small business in the way one might do so in this system. The small-business owner is generally part of what's called the petit bourgeoisie. They generally buy the labor of members of the working class, but don't have quite the same kind of control as the true bourgeoisie. These kinds of small businesses would have to be turned into collective-based shops; no one person gets to own that business and exploit workers' labor.

Someone more versed in Marxist theory might go into more detail about it, but that's generally how I understand it.

Marxism, that is as it was envisioned by Marx, was of a laborer creating and doing so to provide for himself and his family, answering to no one but the government itself. This is different from Capitalism, wherein it is possible to do that, but people also work for others. Marx stated once that if every man had a "business," and that business was provision, then what would eventually become Marxism would succeed.

So, in that regard, you are correct. We are talking about two different outlooks, however, and that should be an understood concept owing to the fact that we're contrasting two very different systems.

In what way?

One instance would the Cap & Trade. I realize that many believe it a necessary thing for "environmental concerns," but it places more undue stress on small businesses, and significantly less on companies that could handle more.

Another instance would be the oft spoke of "Obamacare." Under it, small businesses are required to handle the same insurance load as large corporations, with little consideration for their much smaller size.

These two instances, though relegated specifically to business, creates an unfavorable environment for a middle class. As a result, small business owners and those who are self-employed feel the squeeze, and must either restructure their businesses, or give up entirely. As a result, there is a growing anger and resentment between classes- Occupy Wall Street is a beautiful example of this.

More importantly, I'd say, he's not attempting to put every industry in the country under the collective ownership of the working class.

No, not at all. In fact, he's taken several industry leaders and placed them firmly in the government's control. Again, I realize that some will argue this point as there are so many differences of opinion, but banking and manufacturing- And a report I just got out of WV regarding mining- are industries that helped form the U.S.

This step is in keeping with the tenets of Communism.

My impression seems to be that these are aspects of the transitional period proposed in the Marxist-Leninist current of communism. Hoyt's insistence that there must be some sort of totalitarian dictatorship, however, is not true. That may be what tends to happen, but again, I don't believe that's what is meant to happen. The Soviet Union was not the perfect workers' state many envision.

You may be confusing Marxism with Communism. The two are as different from one another as Socialism is from Fascism. Marxism requires a governmental agency solely as means of keeping the economic status quo. Communism requires a governmental system that is totalitarian to control society as a whole.

I also dislike her use of the word "utopia". I haven't seen too many communists that think their vision of the world is a true utopia. Hopeful, perhaps, but not really a utopia.

Utopia is a word used by Marx himself to describe a completely Marxist society. OF course, he never referred to it as Marxism, but the point remains. Her use is in keeping with his own writings, as well as those of Lenin and others; and while Communism is NOT Marxism, it borrows heavily from his philosophy. However, instead of the individual being the one in control of the government, as with Socialism; or the government carefully maintaining a single class as with Marxism; Communism is a government maintaining control of the individual, and their environment. Interestingly enough, even this is different from Fascism, because Communism still allows for personal freedoms- They are simply regulated to a micron. Fascism, on the other hand, controls everything, including moral decision.

Her third point is flat out wrong. The idea of communism is that, as the people live under this socialist government for long enough and have managed to run their own affairs (through workers' councils, collectives, assemblies, etc.), the state is supposed to whither away, leaving a stateless, classless society. The end goal of communism is to get rid of the state, not leave it in place.

Again, you are confusing two different governmental styles. Communist government is NOT socialist. It is Communist. Communism borrows from Socialism, Marxism and Fascism. It is an entirely different system of government.

The furthest left you could classify Obama without sounding completely ignorant is as a social democrat. That's a real stretch, though.

Not accurate, but I understand why you would say so.

As was stated once before, Obama was not merely friends with Saul Alinsky and others like him: He was an acolyte, to use Saul's own words. In other words, Obama trained and learned from him. To say that Obama is not at all Communist is as ignorant as to say he is a Fascist or a Socialist. He may operate as a social Democrat; and indeed, he does do so; but his policies, and even his own speeches, show him to be of a Communist mindset.

 

[rturner76]

Well, regardless of whether we use terms like Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Mr Obama's actions speak loudly (and often oppositely than his speech) for a wild ride on the socialist spectrum.

And regardless of his politics... he is most definitely a sociopath. But we've lived through them before...we just need to not reelect them!

A sociopath? I gotta hear more about this?? How did you come up with that one? What exactly would make this man a sociopath? He wan't healthcare for children?

 

[SPB1987]

So ... where do you believe Obama fits on the chart?

Is Obama more inclined toward the communists and totalitarianism or closer to socialism?

Why is it that you can not give an explanation of what marxism is? You remind me of the liberals who used to swear Bush was a fascist but none of them really understood what that meant. If you are gonna throw a word around you should probably understand what it means.

 

[RETS]

A sociopath? I gotta hear more about this?? How did you come up with that one? What exactly would make this man a sociopath? He wan't healthcare for children?

He wasn't what for who?!




Thanks, dude! I needed that laugh!

 

[rturner76]

He wants healthcare for children......oops

 

[Redac]

Marxism, that is as it was envisioned by Marx, was of a laborer creating and doing so to provide for himself and his family, answering to no one but the government itself.

Do you happen to have a source for that claim? I haven't read Marx extensively, and I can't remember seeing this anywhere. My understanding is that the communism he wanted was never about everyone providing for themselves, it was about the community and society collectively providing for every member.

This is different from Capitalism, wherein it is possible to do that, but people also work for others. Marx stated once that if every man had a "business," and that business was provision, then what would eventually become Marxism would succeed.

Again, I'd be curious to see Marx's words on this.

One instance would the Cap & Trade. I realize that many believe it a necessary thing for "environmental concerns," but it places more undue stress on small businesses, and significantly less on companies that could handle more.

I admittedly don't know a whole lot about the Cap & Trade ideas that have been put forth/implemented/whatever, so I will decline to comment on it.

Another instance would be the oft spoke of "Obamacare." Under it, small businesses are required to handle the same insurance load as large corporations, with little consideration for their much smaller size.

I tend to favor a single-payer system, though I wouldn't much mind some other method of delivery as long as it's universal and accessible for all. That's neither here nor there as far as this thread is concerned, though.

These two instances, though relegated specifically to business, creates an unfavorable environment for a middle class. As a result, small business owners and those who are self-employed feel the squeeze, and must either restructure their businesses, or give up entirely. As a result, there is a growing anger and resentment between classes- Occupy Wall Street is a beautiful example of this.

OWS seems like a reflection of growing resentment among a sizable portion of the populace toward the elite members of the upper echelon of society (the bourgeoisie, if you will) and a government that seems to serve only that elite class. Whether this resentment is misplaced, whether they're just envious... again, not really the topic of this thread. That particular horse has already been beaten ad nauseum.

No, not at all. In fact, he's taken several industry leaders and placed them firmly in the government's control. Again, I realize that some will argue this point as there are so many differences of opinion, but banking and manufacturing- And a report I just got out of WV regarding mining- are industries that helped form the U.S.

This step is in keeping with the tenets of Communism.

The nationalization of certain companies is certainly something a socialist might do. Someone transitioning to a fully socialist government, though, with the goal of ending up at communism, does not nationalize one company, or even one industry (which Obama has not done). A communist attempts to nationalize all industry, and bring it all under the ownership of the state and thus, ideally, ownership of the proletariat.

You may be confusing Marxism with Communism. The two are as different from one another as Socialism is from Fascism. Marxism requires a governmental agency solely as means of keeping the economic status quo. Communism requires a governmental system that is totalitarian to control society as a whole.

My use of communism in this context was meant as a general term for the set of ideologies that strive to implement a communist society. Not all communists are also Marxists.

I think you may also be confusing a few terms, however. Marxism is a socioeconomic worldview and a method of analyzing history and social change. Communism (as a stage in history) is a classless, stateless society in which the means of production (capital, in other words) are collectively owned and managed by the workers. The Marxist theory of history sees capitalism as one of those historical stages, which will inevitably give way to socialism by way of a proletarian revolution, which will inevitably lead to a purely communist society.

Socialism is that in-between stage, where ideally the working class would establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which political power (via a state) is held by the working class as a whole.

Utopia is a word used by Marx himself to describe a completely Marxist society. OF course, he never referred to it as Marxism, but the point remains.

Sorry to ask again, but do you know where he said this? More for my own gratification than anything.

Of course, even if what Marx envisioned was utopia, he isn't some kind of prophet. People have been adding on their own ideas for years.

Her use is in keeping with his own writings, as well as those of Lenin and others; and while Communism is NOT Marxism, it borrows heavily from his philosophy.

Fair enough; many various flavors of communist ideology, if not most, derive from and draw from Marxist thought.

However, instead of the individual being the one in control of the government, as with Socialism;

Socialism can take many forms, depending on the variation of Marxist thought you subscribe to. Generally,though, its supposed to be the working class as a whole in control.

or the government carefully maintaining a single class as with Marxism;

As I said, Marxism is a methodology and worldview more than anything.

Communism is a government maintaining control of the individual, and their environment.

Communism is the aforementioned classless, stateless society.

Again, you are confusing two different governmental styles. Communist government is NOT socialist. It is Communist. Communism borrows from Socialism, Marxism and Fascism. It is an entirely different system of government.

"Communist government" is as much an oxymoron as "totalitarian democracy" or "fascist liberalism." Communism is the final, inevitable stage of the progression of history in Marxist theory. Socialism is a transition period between capitalism and communism. Only one of those two stages has a state, and it is not the last one.

I also don't know where you got this idea that Communism as an ideology "borrows" from Fascism, considering that Fascism as an ideology did not originate until the early 1900s, and whose ideological roots trace to right around 1880. As a frame of reference, Karl Marx died in 1883.

Not accurate, but I understand why you would say so.

As was stated once before, Obama was not merely friends with Saul Alinsky and others like him: He was an acolyte, to use Saul's own words. In other words, Obama trained and learned from him. To say that Obama is not at all Communist is as ignorant as to say he is a Fascist or a Socialist. He may operate as a social Democrat; and indeed, he does do so; but his policies, and even his own speeches, show him to be of a Communist mindset.

You have already stated that Obama is not a Marxist, but you seem to be saying that he is a communist, or at least has the mindset of one (which is more or less the same thing). The only non-Marxist form of communism that I can think of is anarcho-communism. The idea that the POTUS is an anarchist is beyond absurd.

I don't think any of those labels apply to him. He's an American liberal, that's all.

 

[MachZer0]

You don't have to present a definition of Marxism to know Obama is not, considering every one of his policies have been favorable to capitalism.

Obamacare is not favorable to capitalism. Subverting existing bankrptcy laws is not favorable to capitalism. Buying out an auto company is not favorable to capitalism. Cap and trade is not favorable to capitalism. Bankrupting a private industry is not favorable to capitalism.

 

[MachZer0]

A sociopath? I gotta hear more about this?? How did you come up with that one? What exactly would make this man a sociopath? He wan't healthcare for children?

I'll agree with you that Obama is not a sociopath. Sociopaths have no sense of remorse and the fact that Obama has apologized for America's existence over and over rules out the idea that he can't show remorse. Misguided remorse for sure, but it still rules out his being a sociopath.

 

[MachZer0]

Why is it that you can not give an explanation of what marxism is? You remind me of the liberals who used to swear Bush was a fascist but none of them really understood what that meant. If you are gonna throw a word around you should probably understand what it means.

Why don't you educate us and tell us what Marxism is.

 

[A2SG]

I like how you ignored the point I was making about a congressman speaking and endorsing the event.

I didn't, actually:

Individuals are responsible for their own opinions and their own actions.

I was asking about the Democratic Party. Specifically. What specific policies does the party support or advocate that show contempt for religion?

As for policies? The BC mandate on the RCC,

There was never a mandate on the Church itself, religious institutions were always exempt. The flap was over employers affiliated with the church, like hospitals and schools, which employ people who aren't catholic. And, if you recall, President Obama made a special exception for them, putting the onus on paying for birth control on the insurance carrier instead. While some institutions may not have liked that compromise, let's not forget, those institutions don't hire only catholics, so the employees themselves should have some say in their own medical decisions.

suing to try and force religious schools and churches to follow federal guidelines on hiring, etc.

If they accept federal funds, they have to follow the same rules everyone else who accepts federal funds does, that's only fair. That doesn't display contempt for religion, it simply doesn't give them special treatment.

As for nationalizing, I guess you weren't around during the BP aftermath. The most famous being Maxine Waters' comment.

I recall a lot being said, including one prominent member of the GOP apologizing to BP for daring to expect them to clean up their own mess. But if the Democratic Party tried to nationalize a British company, I must have missed that. Please elaborate.

-- A2SG, if you're only referring to some comment Ms. Waters made, rather than a specific policy put forth by the party itself, well, individuals are entitled to their own opinion, and those opinions are not necessarily reflected in the party they are affiliated with....

 

[Redac]

Why don't you educate us and tell us what Marxism is.

Is that an admission that you don't know what Marxism is?