The left will not be able to win that war because they have nothing to fight for. They fight against freedom not for it.

Anyone who describes themself as:
1. Democrat
2. Marxist
3. Socialist
a. National Socialist (aka Nazi)
4. Fascist
5. Communist

Or any other statist who believes that the collective has more value than the individual.

Here, I’ll make it so simple that even you will be able to understand:
Democrats are wrong
Fascists and Nazi’s are essentially the same, and they too, are wrong
Communists are wrong
It’s really that simple.
p.s. You are wrong.

Aren't you an anarcho-communist? That's not the same thing as a Marxist communist.

I don't care if you want to be an anarcho-communist. There is no way you can be a threat to my live while your living in a commune.

Marxism is not the same. Marxist communism is national or international communism. Just like Stalin called himself an international socialist and Hitler was a national socialist. Those regimes threaten my liberty and that's where will stand and fight.

Democrats most certainly are leftists. They may not be 100% socialist or communist but they are leftists nevertheless.

And since Biden swore fealty to the World Economic Forum he has become an international fascist.

Fascism was born out of Marxism. It was an attempt to correct some of the problems with socialism and Marxist communism. Stalin mocked Mussolini by calling him a right-winger and the early 20th century Progressives picked up on that and ran with it when we went to war against Hitler and Mussolini. The Progressive were distancing themselves from Hitler and Mussolini as much as they could. Earlier they praised them both, along with Stalin, as "men of the future".

The Progressives have done an amazing job of indoctrinating this country into making everyone who doesn't bother to look at history, think Nazis and fascists are right-wing. It's always been a lie. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism are on the far left. Anarchy is on the far right. Nazis and fascists have nothing in common with the right.

Individual liberty is opposed by all variations of socialism. That's why they cannot be on the right.

Define leftist

Well it all depends on how you set up a political scale. I believe it was defined in Parliament in England with one group sitting on the left and the other group on the right. In our Congress it is the same.

However, it is generally accepted that the left side of a political scale represents total government control while the right side of the scale represents anarchy.

More recently (i.e. WWII era) that scale has been manipulated and really makes no sense. It puts socialism and communism on the far left and Nazism and fascism on the far right. I find no room for freedom between that right and left seeing that all four are very similar. It usually is a world of difference between those who define themselves as one or the other. And in the past they have killed each other over those differences. But I don't care about the minutia. What I care about is the loss of freedom that they all have in common. They are all collectivist movements. Fascism even takes it's name from the Latin fasci, meaning bundle of sticks. They represent themselves as a collection of sticks with a war axe blade sticking off to one side.

The idea that a central planner (aka the government) makes all decisions for the collective abhors me. It goes against everything I believe in.

I believe that the individual is completely responsible for every decision in their own life and they must also be responsible for any consequences of their actions. Laws are in place to keep the individual from infringing on other people's freedoms. And laws should only be enacted to deter the infringement of freedom by a person or group of people on another person or group of people.

That is why I prefer the original political scale that put the complete absence of individual liberty on the far left and the complete absence of government on the far right. That why there is a place for freedom.

Everyone on the left seems to hate with a passion that definition but too bad for them. They do not understand freedom and what it means. They want the government to babysit them and make all of their decisions for them. To them that is freedom. It is freedom from having to think.

So to answer your question, a leftist is anyone who is willing to give up their own and everyone else's individual liberty so that they no longer have to be responsible for their own thoughts and actions. They expect the central planners to do their thinking and in return they will give up ownership of their lives.

I'm an anarcho communist.....?

That's what I asked. Most people I have talked to on ImgFlip who say they are communists then tell me they are anarcho-communists. That is a huge difference between a Marxist communist. Anarcho-communism predates Marx. Anarcho-communism might be influence by Marx but Marx wanted his version of communism to be at the state and if possible the global level. In his demented little brain he presumed that his communism would benefit mankind by essentially turning them all into ants in an ant colony.

The anarcho-communists just want to live in a commune where everything is shared in the commune. This is why I don't have any problems with anarcho-communists. They aren't trying to establish themselves as a national or international commune. They just want them, their families and groups of like-minded friends to all live and work together for the benefit of the commune. If that is what floats your boat then go ahead and live in your commune. I wish you them all the success in the world just as long as they do not try to force me to live in their commune.

But you tell me what you are. I won't make any assumptions. I have met a small handful of Marxist communists on ImgFlip. I don't care what they believe, what I care is any actions they might take to ensure that I have to live under their tyranny. We've lost enough freedom with the Progressives and corrupt politicians in this country. I do not want to lose any more.

People who want to be brain surgeons but can't afford the education for it: .-.

What about that? Are you going to force people who paid and many who are still paying for their education, pay for other people's college education???

How many more burdens are you going to place on the workers.

Socialism is slavery.

the definition of socialism is when workers own the means of production. there. simple like that.

That is not the complete definition of socialism. Nor does that work. Workers can own stock in to a business but if everyone is the president then that business will fall apart faster than a stack of cards in an earthquake.

Workers (i.e. the collective) owning the means of production always becomes the central planners determining what is best for the workers.

By the way, this is why Nazism is socialism. The National Socialist German Workers Party. They preached the same ideology.

In a free society there is no equality of outcome. Everyone is created or born equal but after that any attempt to make people equal leads to a complete loss of liberty and extreme poverty. It's why all forms of statism or collectivism have been failures.

Free people are no equal and equal people are not free.

Along with workers owning the mean of production comes the labor theory of the price of goods. The labor theory held that all labor should be paid the same wage regardless of the industry or the products and/or services they produce.

That was proven a failure centuries ago. You simply cannot pay a brain surgeon the same wage as a janitor. If you do that then everyone becomes janitors because it's much easier work than brain surgery.

A free market capitalist and a free market socialist walk into a bar.

The bar is now destroyed

free market and socialist are contradictions in term. A free market socialist cannot not exist therefore, the bar is not destroyed.

Ummm they exist though. I've met them

Then the do not understand what a free market actually is. Technically speaking a free market can only exist in anarchy. When there is a government, there is always government involvement in every business transaction. That no longer makes it a free market. It can be a freer market, like the first almost 120 years when there was no federal income tax. There has always been state, county and city taxes of some kind.

A free market is when the exchange of goods and/or service involves only the buyer and the seller. No third party involvement occurs. No taxes, no regulations and no fees.

Socialism cannot operate this way. Socialists governments control the means of production entirely. Person A cannot sell to Person B without total government involvement.

Any person who has deluded themselves by calling themselves a free market socialist just does not understand the free market. They can be a controlled market socialist but that is as close as it gets.

What bothers me is people who think that the government has a responsibility to control all business transactions. They think that is what keeps the consumer safe. What keeps the consumer safe is a free market. If a person causes financial, mental or physical harm with their product, they lose that customer and any potential customer that person talks to. If they harm enough people they find themselves out of business.

In a socialist market then the government steps in and saves the business because they have to save jobs. More customers are harmed but that does not matter because the individual is expendable in a collectivist state.

Anarchist socialists? They exist....

Anarcho-communists exist. They are people who want to live in communes. Anarcho-socialists is bizarre. Socialism was never about communal living, it is about controlling nations. I can only assume that an anarchist socialist is using anarchy to bring down an existing government through anarchy only to build it back as a socialist regime.

This is exactly what the World Economic Forum is in the process of doing with their great reset. They may be socialists but what they want to "build back better" (the phrase that Biden borrowed from the WEF) with is more akin to fascism. It is a newer 21st century kind of fascism. This is a global effort. It is a new New World Order.

The WEF promoted this as "you will own nothing and be happy". I am vehemently opposed to that idea. I don't think any government can promise happiness, especially by taking away private property rights, which includes owning yourself. The best any government can promise is to give people the freedom to pursue happiness. Without private property rights there is no freedom. If you do not own yourself, your house, your car, etc then someone else does. If someone else does then you live under their set of rules.

Like when you rent an apartment. Your landlord has rules such as you cannot paint the walls, replace the carpet or have pets. Some landlords allow some or part of that but many do not. When you own a home, unfortunately, the government has set rules also and if you do not pay your property taxes they will take your house away. I have no idea how we allowed that to happen but that is not freedom.

Freedom is the only way that happiness can be found.

There's a story called Robert vs Sophia. Let's just say, Robert was a capitalist and Sophia was a socialist/communist. In the story, when people found out Robert was a dirty cheater, they ran from him and ran to Sophia because she was more honest.

Did you think that through very well?

What if Robert is honest and Sophia is dishonest? How does that work out? I can tell you.

Robert's business grows and prospers and his customers have a product that they are happy with. Sophia's business maintains status quo because she relies on the government to keep her business operational. Her customers just have to get used to crappy products.

Now lets look at what happens in your scenario.

Robert's business falls apart because no one will buy his products anymore. Sophia's business maintains status quo because she relies on the government to keep her business operational. Her customers just have to get used to crappy products. It doesn't matter if Sophia is honest or not because the government controls the means of production, not Sophia.

Capitalism rewards honesty and punishes dishonesty. Socialism doesn't reward anyone and punishes overachievement.

That is not how the story went at all. Soph had zero reliance on the government.

Here's how it went

Robert didn't pay his workers that much because he wanted to get a lot. And he wanted to beat Sophia so badly. Sophia however had people work with her instead of work for her because she believed all workers should own the work. She worked with her "comrades" as she calls them. Robert makes more money than Sophia, but then everyone likes Sophia better.

If Sophia had zero reliance on the government then she was a capitalist, not a socialist.

Robert's business was not long for this world because he didn't believe in competing with the market value for wages. His employees will bail on him.

Sophia's business fell apart because she couldn't make ends meet but paying everyone the same wage, regardless of the value that job brought to the business.

And from it sounds like Sophia might believe in socialism but lives in a capitalist (aka free market) economy.

Robert may have made more money but because he paid his employees below market value and because he cheated his customers, he's very poor and straddled with massive debt from his failed business.

Sophia is right next to him in the same condition because her business, although very profitable, could not afford to pay those exorbitant salaries. All of her "comrades" are now working at Franks business.

Frank is a free market capitalist. He is very religious and does his best to live the morals taught in his religion. He pays his employees the mark value for their jobs. His harder working employees he pays above market value. He does so because their hard work benefits the company. His business is very profitable. Frank has become very wealthy because on top of his strong moral convictions, he understands how his business works. He pays attention to market trends and adjusts his business accordingly. He spends 12 to 14 or more hours per day at work except for Sunday, his sabbath day. He is at the office far longer than any of his employees.

Socialist never see that, they just think he's stealing money from his employees.

Then there is Bill. Bill is very wealthy. He was hired to be the CEO of XYZ corporation. He, like Frank, is a very honest man. He spends long days in the office also. Bill told the shareholders that he would not take a salary until he could make the company profitable again. Although he made the company profitable 5 years ago he has refused to take a salary so far.

Yes, all of those scenarios have actually happened and are happening.

socialism wis when the government does stuff ahhhhhh comment

"socialism wis when the government does stuff ahhhhhh comment"

Yes, bad stuff.

Go pick up a book by Thomas Sowell, called "Basic Economics", and read and understand it. Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant intellectuals of our time. I am not saying that because I am a fan but because he is a true genius.

That dude staring back at you in the mirror.

You are a prime example