Are you a leftist?

If you are not, why not?

If you are, why?


I consider myself, a socialist, communist, anarchist, liberal, and libertarian ( classical liberalism). Why? my views spread across the whole left paradigm.

 

No, becauase libertarianism and human freedom in large, complex societies is incompatible with leftist collectivist ideologies like anarchism and communism.

 

No, because more of my beliefs tend to be more towards what people would call the right then left.

 

I am not a Leftist. I am not a Rightie, either. Both are part of the same false, illusionary, divide and control system. The masses have been duped into believing they have a choice when they go to the voting booth, when in fact they have anything but a choice. Our presidents, senators and congressmen, regardless of party affiliation, are devoted to GLOBALISM and CORPORATISM, which is neither Right nor Left. Our elected officials merely play the role of Republicans and Democrats/liberals and conservatives to dupe the ignorant masses into thinking they have a choice. It's all a big game. Behind all the phony rhetoric, these people are all devoted to the same agenda. In the end, it's all about money, and our elected officials have all been bought off by the same corporations and private interests in which they serve. You do NOT get to a high office in this country unless you are devoted to the globalist, one world agenda.

Politics in America have been hijacked by SOCIALISM, though many Leftists will certainly disagree, as they have been conditioned to see socialism only in the idealistic, utopian light in which it has been sold to their naive minds by the manipulators.

George Bush is a socialist. George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill since he's been in office. George Bush has nearly TRIPLED the size of government. Fiscally speaking, George Bush is the most liberal president this country has seen.

Most people are so brainwashed that they believe Bush is "conservative" because he pretends to be a Christian, wears a cowboy hat, drives a Ford pickup, and cuts tress on his Crawford, Texas ranch. People are too dumb to see this is all a front, and that Bush is nothing more than a puppet controlled by globalist handlers. He represents the same agenda that has been pushed by EVERY president since the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. This agenda is the overthrow of the US government, which is needed to bring about the one world government these people are after.

Again, most Leftists will choose to disregard the fact that Bush is a Leftist/socialist because they will only see socialism in the way in which it has been sold to them by the media masters. They fail to grasp the fact that socialism is little more than the transfer of wealth from the public to the state, who then allocate the money as they see fit. Rarely does this money go to helping the people, but rather enslaving them, which we are beginning to see in socialist, fascist America.

Hitler was a socialist, and I am sure bleeding heart liberals will agree that is not their idea of socialism. They fail to realize that socialism by the elite and powerful few is nothing more than socialism FOR the elite and powerful few. Enslavement for everyone else. Centralized power ALWAYS results in CENTRALIZED CONTROL. And there is absolutely NOTHING different between a Right-wing dictatorship and a Left-wing dictatorship, except, as history has proven (but rarely emphasized), Left-wing dictatorships have killed far more people.

Socialism is nothing more than MONOPOLY CAPITALISM administered by the state and controlled by the big banks.

If I sound like a broken record player.... GOOD!

 

Collectivism in the economic sense is needed to cure many evils society faces.

Centralized state economic power is as dangerous as centralized private economic power. Why? Future potential tyrannies, dictators, oligarchies and plutocracies.

Argentine offers a great alternative for this problem, worker collectives run and owned by workers themselves not by the state or some bureaucracy. And, a legal system that supports and understands social property. A movement still in it is infancy, lets see how it turns out or whether it will be defeated by it is opposition, which are big business, corporate powers, and corporate governments.

Many people, who fear collectivism are properly well off or cannot imagine how much better their lives will be.

 

SOCIALLY I am so far left it is beyond RADICAL. A Timothy Leary/Abbie Hoffmann on steroids. Smoke dope, fuck your brains out, run around naked in public, whatever floats your boat... I only draw the line when other people are actually being harmed (murder, rape, assault, robbery, etc.), their civil liberties and civil rights are being violated, or society, as a whole is placed in jeopardy ("War on Drugs", "PATRIOT ACT", etc.).

ECONOMICALLY I am moderate left. I believe in a free market, but with checks and balances. I believe in helping those less fortunate and not judging people based solely on their goddamned bank accounts and wallets.

 

^abbie hoffman was so fucking amazing
i am very left
socialist, communist, environmentalist, anarchist, etcetera

 

He was radical, that's for sure!

 

have you ever read any of his books?
they're so good

 

That's supposed to be beyond radical?

 

Indeed, I own two of 'em.

 

You don't know what I mean by "whatever floats your boat".

Seriously, America is puritan when it comes to reality. If the truth was ever really embraced as is, America would shit itself. Damn right that's beyond radical.

America ain't ready. Trust me.

 

absolutely.

it seems like a good portion of this country is stuck in some 1950's righteous nonsense; I'm a bit more forward thinking than to let dogmatic-based morals based on archaic superstitions dictate how I perceive social change. This especially holds true, since I'm an artistic/scientific type of person. None of my erudite peers even lean slightly right; we feel that neoconservativism has no place in science. Revolutionary thought doesn't come from stagnant minds, neither does innovation/creativity.

 

You can still be creative and "scientific" (whatever that means) and not a supporter of world government.

The problem with some of you is that you're so mind-controlled and hung up on labels that you think you MUST throw the Leftist label on yourselves in order to not be a bible-thumping, Bush-loving neocon stooge.

The majority of people in this forum are VERY naive when it comes to politics, and pretty much base their opinions on media talking points. Or so it would seem.

 

Neither, I am but my views tend to be classified as left. I am not an ideologue, I take the best ideas from every ideology and implement them into my views. By the way, do you know where the term Left and Right originate from?

I think, many people realize and feel American democracy is dead and understand the type of globalism being pushed is not the type they desire.

So neo-cons are socialists?

So what? Americans are massive spenders, does mean they are all socialists? You say Bush is a puppet (which I agree with) and now are you saying he has control, on which bills he gets to veto or not?

Does it matter what he is? The globalists will use whatever ideology to achieve their agenda.

Of course they will it makes no sense.

Fascist hitler was a political genius. Socialism was popular during his time and he used socialist rhetoric like Bush uses conservative rhetoric to gain power, and dominate. It is not what they say they believe or what we think they believe, but how they act is what determines their beliefs. In my view Bush's actions do not represent the actions of a real socialist or a liberal as you claim.

 

Absolutely neocons are Leftist socialists. The neocons come from far Left backgrounds. The word neocon, which means "new conservative," refers to the fact that these are socialist Leftists turn socialist Right-wing warmongers. The neocon ideology derives in part from Leon Trotsky, who the early neocon founders like Irving Kristol (William Kristol's father) were followers of. Neocons are NOT conservatives in the least. They are Leftists who have hijacked true conservatism in order to fulfill an imperialistic agenda.

 

There is a HUGE difference between American yuppies who spend a lot on themselves, and governments who spend a lot to centralize power and control and turn the country into an Orwellian police state.

To compare the two is silly and pointless.

You are right about Bush's spending being out of his hands in many aspects. As I have said, Bush is just a puppet.... for his globalist, socialist handlers. Bush is a socialist, but only because he is the frontman for the socialist handlers in which he must answer to.

Really, I think Bush is too dumb to have an opinion on anything. That's why he's such a useful tool for the Elite. He makes for a great fall-guy as well because he comes off as so stupid.

 

We on the left don't recognize them as so and they do not recognize themselves as so.

From wikipedia:

 

Likewise on your previous comparison.

Dose the term plutocracy not classify such people better?

Or maybe being dumb is also just an act.

 

I understand that.

Still, regardless of what they call themselves, or the fact that Leftists refuse to see them as they truly are, neocons are Right-wingers in name only. The are Leftists, with a global agenda, who are working as a branch of the Council on Foreign Relations, which ties in with the socialist/globalist, one world government agenda.

When they saw it convenient to play the part of Right-wingers in order to benefit their agenda, they became neocons. Their ideologies have not changed, I can guarantee you that.

As I have said before, Left and Right is only intended for public consumption, to dupe the masses. Whether people in high seats of power call themselves liberals or conservatives is meaningless because they are all working for the same people at the highest levels.