Notice how a post about the separation of Church and State, something in the US Constitution and a guaranteed right to Americans, triggered you to immediate jump to Communism. This has nothing to do with Communism. You need to stop being so one-note.

This is about Atheists who are indeed for Liberty - the liberty to not have religion forced upon them. This includes not being forced to give your own money to a Church. Yet you need to dump a word salad to cry about Communism and argue for Christian Theocracy as you have time and time again.

I am glad you are not an American.

@JacksonNought Oh, its you Jackson, I though it was someone I can reason with. lol

But its just you. Shame.

@Krunoslav I know, right? Must be Communism.

@JacksonNought Considering what you said last time about communism, yeah it must be. After all, you support what you do not understand, and you argue from a clueless position, but you are still a proud "useful idiot". Commies love people like you. It makes their job really easy.

@Krunoslav yep, arguing for true religious freedom - including the non-religious to be free from religious indoctrination and subjugation - is nothing short of Communism. I guess the US Founding Fathers were all Communists.

Remember when you said Monarchy was the best governing system? You sure do argue for the authoritarians and theocrats quite often. You are the true "useful idiot" here. You make their job easy. It's no wonder Hitler rose to power with people like you.

@JacksonNought At least try to be informed before you comment. Separation of Church and State is not what you think it is, but I don't expect you to read about it. There was no separation of Church and state it was religious freedom in theory, in practice it was something else.

a) American civil religion is a term given to a shared set of certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals by those who live in the United States of America. These shared values and holidays are based upon, parallel to, but independent of the theological tenets of each specific denomination or religious belief. The notion of a civil religion originated in the United States due to its origins as a religiously diverse nation. From the Pilgrim founders and the other Puritan groups to the numerous other groups fleeing religious persecution, the American nation had a unique experience and developed a system that allowed for maximum freedom of religion for individuals and groups while allowing no one religious denomination to dominate. In this context, the nation developed a religious, primarily Protestant ethos and set of values based on religion but not overtly based on any one tradition.

The term was coined by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967. The article in which the term is coined, "Civil Religion in America," sparked one of the most controversial debates in United States sociology. Soon after the paper was published, the topic became the major focus at religious sociology conferences and numerous articles and books were written on the subject. The debate reached it peak with the American Bicentennial celebration in 1976.

The American civil religion emerged as a means to permit the creation of a distinct national set of values that was not tied to a specific confession. It permitted religion to play a fundamental role in shaping the moral vision of the country but in a way that removed theological concerns from the public arena.

Secular did not meant separation of Church and state it meant teaching same moral values among different Christian donamination, often supported and funded both by state and church. And Church was a where much of the after life etc would be conducted according to specific christian denominations.

This was critical for nation because it meant shared moral code. Once the country became more diverse and children more spoiled this became a controversial point, leading to more radical version of liberalism coasy with communist ideas. Since you are to unintelligent to understand what happen and too lazy to read you keep regurgitating same garbage you hear from commies today. And you can trace clear decline in civil society and in recent decades decline in liberty in the United States, proportional with the rise of communism.

b) I never called so called funding fathers communists, that was your assumption.

d) "Remember when you said Monarchy was the best governing system? "

Dude, name me a monarchy that compares with brutality, deaths and destruction of its own people on the scale of communist regimes? Moron.

@Krunoslav

First off, I have lived in the USA my whole life. Don't try to pretend you know more about my country than I do. You read one or two books, I grew up here and learned about its history every day.

Second, it's funny how people like you will claim "that's not what the First Amendment says" and try to be a Constitutional literalist and argue for original intent - but only for the First Amendment. When it comes to the Second Amendment, you change your tune and argue for completely unrestricted firearms.

No, you didn't call Founding Fathers Communists. But if you are to be intellectually consistent, you should be. Everything you are claiming is Communist is everything the FF's founded this country upon. Which makes it clear that you don't actually know what Communism is.

And yet again you claim I support Communism when I have said time and time again that I don't. Oh, but wanting civil rights for women and minorities and members of the LGBTQ community is Communism, isn't that what you say? Arguing for religious freedom and pluralism and not having Christianity forced on you is Communism? Yeah, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Why are you comparing Monarchy to Communism, when no one is arguing for Communism except the imaginary voices in your head? You'd prefer a powerful ruler, picked through birth-right or power-grab, to rule over serfs instead of the people having power and choosing their elected representatives. Your words are quite clear - you would prefer a Christian Theocracy to enforce your will on everyone.

@JacksonNought "First off, I have lived in the USA my whole life. Don't try to pretend you know more about my country than I do. You read one or two books, I grew up here and learned about its history every day."

Apperntly not. lol

LGBTQ is communism under rainbow colors, genius.

And here is another one for you. Liberalism, inevitably leads to communism. It has no other choice, it is built into its political and religious DNA.

"Why are you comparing Monarchy to Communism, when no one is arguing for Communism except the imaginary voices in your head? You'd prefer a powerful ruler, picked through birth-right or power-grab, to rule over serfs instead of the people having power and choosing their elected representatives. Your words are quite clear - you would prefer a Christian Theocracy to enforce your will on everyone."

I would not prefer anyone to force anything on anyone else, but without shared moral code, which liberalism rejects the only possible path is communism under whatever name you want to use.

And indeed, history is quite clear on this. Monarchy and communism are on the opposite sides and in-between lies liberalism that always leads from Monarchy to communism and in rare cases back to liberalism with strong socialist tendencies, namely welfare state and deep corruption in the public sector, as seen after the fall of Soviet Block. Non became a monarchy, but they are neither classical libertarians nor traditional conservatives. they are just republics with still strong shared moral code, thanks to its Judeo Christian values. Weather its Catholic or Ortodox church. Protestants are wishy washy since they don't have centralized hierarchy.

Since classical libertarians cannot survive for very long and traditional or classical conservatism is too civilised, you end up with path to communism , for different reasons. And its not hard to see that today unless you are useful idiot such as yourself. Therefore between communism and monarchy if I had to choose which one is less damaging, its monarchy, history is quite clear on the body count.

And I'm not arguing to enforce my will on anyone, I'm remarking upon the inevitable path from liberalism to communism and the destructive nature of communist regimes, compared to monarchies. But you would not understand any of that, would you?

@Krunoslav

LGBTQ is communism under rainbow colors, genius.

Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

How exactly is someone being gay equivalent to Communism? How exactly is allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to kiss without being arrested equivalent to Communism? You say words that mean absolutely nothing. Again you prove you don't actually know what Communism is.

Liberalism, inevitably leads to communism. It has no other choice, it is built into its political and religious DNA.

Well then if that is true, then on the other side of the spectrum, Conservatism inevitably leads to authoritarianism and theocracy. It's built into its political and religious DNA.

Isn't making things up fun?

You have proven once again you have no worldly idea what you are talking about, and just throw out buzzwords you read on your blogs and parrot the narrative that has been fed to you. What a good little sheep you are.

@JacksonNought "Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

“I remembered Papa talking about Stalin confiscating peasants' land, tools, and animals. He told them what crops they would produce and how much they would be paid. I thought it was ridiculous. How could Stalin simply take something that didn't belong to him, something that a farmer and his family had worked their whole lives for? "That's communism, Lina," Papa had said.” ― Ruta Sepetys, Between Shades of Gray

enslavement of 100 + million of people and killing millions while many millions starved to death.

Communism is not a political theory, communism is in theory a utopia (meaning no place) and in reality is hell on earth, dystopian nightmare. For crying out loud, with so much history you still would rather be "useful idiot" than use a brain, Unreal.

"How exactly is someone being gay equivalent to Communism? How exactly is allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to kiss without being arrested equivalent to Communism? You say words that mean absolutely nothing. Again you prove you don't actually know what Communism is."

That is not communism and I never made that argument. LGBTxtrere or however letters they added this week is communism under rainbow flag, that is what I'm saying. Unfortunately you are one of those people who think homosexuality = LGBTQ. That is what makes you "useful idiot". Its a term that was used during Soviet era to explain people like you.

"Isn't making things up fun?"

OK, genious. Show me an example where liberalism did not lead to communism or Nazism (national socialism), either closer to it, or embracing it. It is built into its political DNA, it has no other choice but to lead more and more and more to the radical left.

First to sweep through was the bright idea of, in the words of Adam Smith, "allowing every man to pursue his own interest in his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.” In the first half of the 19th century, this idea became known as liberalism.

Then, just as liberalism began to transform the world, two pernicious ideas began to vie with it. Nationalism and socialism began to capture the imaginations of intellectuals and would eventually displace liberalism completely in the hearts and minds of the West.

Liberalism unlocked humanity’s creative potential, yielding the first ever rise of widespread abundance through industrial mass production. Nationalism and socialism unleashed humanity’s capacity for destruction, unleashing the first ever rise of industrial-scale mass murder.

The twin banes of nationalism and socialism followed the boon of liberalism remarkably quickly. To understand why, we must consider a fourth big idea that historically links the other three: the idea of the people’s state.

Nationalism and socialism cannot exist prior to liberalism since there was no people's state. Hence it could not happen under monarchy. Communist revolution can happen in a monarchy, as it did by force in Russia, but the idea behind the religion or communism developed out of liberalism.

And even under most brutal form of monarchy like in Imperial Russia, with guys like Ivan "The Terrible", nothing could have been compared with the scale and brutality of the Soviet communism.

When communism could not be established by force, it was by cultural Marxism.

George Orwell once said that the “English intelligentsia…can swallow totalitarianism because they have no experience of anything except liberalism…So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” Having experienced the reality of totalitarianism first-hand, Orwell knew all too well the ways in which people far removed from it employ “soothing phrases” to disguise more sinister ends. Of course, he would later coin the term “Newspeak” in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). This was the totalitarian language created to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism under Big Brother.

“The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years — imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations — not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.”

― George Orwell, 1984

Listen Jackson, if you are committed to being an idiot, at least don't be a useful one. OK?

@Krunoslav

That is not communism and I never made that argument. LGBTxtrere or however letters they added this week is communism under rainbow flag, that is what I'm saying. Unfortunately you are one of those people who think homosexuality = LGBTQ.

Uhh... LGBTQ literally means lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer. Other letters are sometimes added for intersex and asexual, or a plus to accommodate other identities. I usually prefer the term GSRM, which stands for gender, sexual, and romantic minorities. It is a bit more inclusive. So, yes, you are right, LGBTQ doesn't = homosexuality since it encompasses an array of gender, sexual, and romantic identities. I still don't see what is has to do with Communism.

You are arguing for forcing a shared "moral law", one you must agree with, and have argued against Atheism and religious freedom in favor of Christian Biblical law. So yes, you are arguing that merely being gay should be illegal, much like former laws in America.

So again I ask, how is LGBTQ Communism? And don't just repeat your slogan again, actually explain it this time. How, specifically, is allowing consenting adults the rights to love and marry each other equivalent to Communism?

You have said Feminism is equivalent to Communism as well. Explain specifically how allowing women the right to vote and the right to own property and be autonomous human beings equivalent to Communism.

You realize Conservatism is trying to reach a utopia as well? The whole notion of "take our country back" is to reach a utopia where white men were in absolute power again. The utopia of slavery and executing gays and forcing everyone to be Christian or get thrown in jail.

OK, genious. Show me an example where liberalism did not lead to communism or Nazism (national socialism), either closer to it, or embracing it. It is built into its political DNA, it has no other choice but to lead more and more and more to the radical left.

Let's ignore the hilarity of you misspelling genius. I guess I'll give you a pass since English isn't your first language. You are being the "useful idiot" here by falling into the trap of "NAZI means National Socialism, they were Socialists, they were Leftists". Sorry, a 5 year old can see through that. Nazis were born of Conservatism and Nationalism and Racism. Nazis dreamed of a utopia of ethnic cleansing and white supremacy and Christian dominionism, all originating from Conservative and Right-Wing ideologies.

Again, the USA was born out of a rejection of Monarchy, and yet you champion it, showing your ideals are completely antithetical to the concept of America.

Since you love quoting Orwell so much, how about these?

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

If people think I am defending the status quo, that is, I think, because they have grown pessimistic and assume that there is no alternative except dictatorship or laissez-faire capitalism.

I have no particular love for the idealized ‘worker’ as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.

It should be noted that there is now no intelligentsia that is not in some sense “Left”. Perhaps the last right-wing intellectual was TE Lawrence.

It's almost as if you have a button that prints "useful idiot" into your comments. Again, keep licking the boot and being a good little sheep.

@JacksonNought "Uhh... LGBTQ literally means lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer. Other letters are sometimes added for intersex and asexual, or a plus to accommodate other identities. I usually prefer the term GSRM, which stands for gender, sexual, and romantic minorities. It is a bit more inclusive. So, yes, you are right, LGBTQ doesn't = homosexuality since it encompasses an array of gender, sexual, and romantic identities. I still don't see what is has to do with Communism."

That is because you are hopeless.

"You are arguing for forcing a shared "moral law", one you must agree with, and have argued against Atheism and religious freedom in favor of Christian Biblical law. So yes, you are arguing that merely being gay should be illegal, much like former laws in America."

No I am not arguing for that. Never said it. Nor do I think being gay should be illegal. Being politically active on sole bases of being gay and pushing communist agendas , yes it should be illegal.

"So again I ask, how is LGBTQ Communism? And don't just repeat your slogan again, actually explain it this time. How, specifically, is allowing consenting adults the rights to love and marry each other equivalent to Communism?

You have said Feminism is equivalent to Communism as well. Explain specifically how allowing women the right to vote and the right to own property and be autonomous human beings equivalent to Communism."

......................................

They all stem from Hegelian Dialectic, and they use Marxism as a way to reach it. Marxism is not only what Marx Wrote, Marxism is umbrella term for the way of reaching communism. Sexuality to feminist and Rainbow communists is what to Karl Marx was class struggle, enemy capitalism.

Hegel’s Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Model

A dialectic method of historical and philosophical progress that postulates

(1) a beginning proposition called a thesis, (current system is bad)
(2) a negation of that thesis called the antithesis, and (critique it by showing its contradictions)
(3) a synthesis whereby the two conflicting ideas are reconciled to form a new proposition. (end results, off course socialism and finally communism, as the utopia of the left)

Although this method is commonly referred to as the Hegelian dialectic, Hegel actually attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. Moreover, many scholars argue that the dialectic is represented of German idealism as developed by Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

I keep posting this for those who need to understand where the origins of the leftist religion for the last 200 years are.

Hegel and the Dialectic | James Lindsay & Michael O'Fallon | Changing Tides Ep. 3

When most commentators refer to the ideological state that Western civilization finds itself in today, the name most commonly used as the genesis of the rot that has infected our society is Karl Marx. This isn’t wholly wrong, but when an examination of the gradualistic sense of the process which has been used to purposely evolve societal conceptions to the end goal of progressive operational success, the name and the methodologies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel should immediately come to the forefront of discussion.

Join Michael O’Fallon, of Sovereign Nations, and James Lindsay, of New Discourses, for an in-depth discussion of how the Hegelian dialectical process and metaphysics work and slowly drain the color out of life in Western Civilization.

............................................

And feminist took the same basic formula or class struggle, alienation and fictional history of oppression, and argued for utopia if "equality" is established. They simply replaced class for sex because it was an easier thing to use politically.

"And then, at that exact dispirited moment when there seemed no one at all willing to play the proletariat, along came the women's movement.” ― Joan Didion, The White Album

...and the rest is as they say, history.

Just as Karl Marx has oversimplified and invented story of how history was one of oppression, he also invented the idea that there are classes in capitalism and they are fixed. Which off course is not true. People can become less or more wealthy in capitalist system. And indeed they do. Very rarely if ever someone is as wealthy as when they started after school and when they retire. Over time people buy cars, houses, they go to vacations, they accumulate wealth, and if they are ambitious they can have upward mobility. But those who took on Marxist ideas like for example feminists they too invented history of oppression , and that women cannot advance in society because they are being oppressed by evil patriarchy. Gay movement did the same.

“Why, when gay rights have never been better, are they portrayed as if they’ve never been worse? Why, when women have never been freer and able to make choices about their lives, is everything about the lack of opportunity for women… Why do we hear talk of the patriarchy at the least plausible time in human history? … Why? What’s actually going on?” – Douglas Murray, from an interview with Peter Whittle, Oct 2019

As written in the 1970's Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory
by Catharine A. MacKinnon

"Sexuality is to feminism what capital is to marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. Marxist theory argues that society is fundamentally constructed of the relations people form as they do and make things needed to survive humanly. Work is the social process of shaping and transforming the material and social worlds, creating people as social beings as they create value. It is that activity by which people become who they are. Class is its structure, production its conse­quence, capital its congealed form, and control its issue."

The relation between marxism and feminism has not changed since it was first written in 1973, but the argument on feminism itself has. It needed to evolve and it needed to become more and more aggressive, which it did. And like all civil rights movement, it has no end. No matter how much power you give to civil rights activists and how much you compromise , its never enough because that is the point. Its not about social justice its about power. It always has been.

.............................

Than came black feminist who combined race and sex and class and that became intersectionality.

[In intersectionality] the binary dimensions of oppression are said to be interlocking and overlapping. America is said to be one giant matrix of oppression, and its victims cannot fight their battles separately. They must all come together to fight their common enemy, the group that sits at the top of the pyramid of oppression: the straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied Christian or Jewish or possibly atheist male. This is why a perceived slight against one victim group calls forth protest from all victim groups. This is why so many campus groups now align against Israel. Intersectionality is like NATO for social-justice activists.

And that gave birth to LGBTQ etc. A way inter sectionals though they can bound their forces and be stronger together , so they invested categories and lump people together who hate each other in order to construct a political slogan in attempt to push that forward.

Douglas Murray (Gay) Explains The Internal Politics Of The LGBT Community

The historic development of this can be read in his book: The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (2019)

...............................

Frankfurt school (full of marxist and other bad ideas) created Critical Theory (cultural marxism) and brought it in American universities, this is the basis for Feminism and Critical Race Theory. CRT is now being used and promoted in all the major institutions, HR department, even military and in schools. It is self proclaimed communist material.

However, it goes back further to the Frankfurt School (Institute for Social Research) in Germany, which was set up in 1923. The Frankfurt school was a think tank for social engineering, aiming to spread collectivism (or its offshoots of socialism, marxism and communism) around the world. As this article from the Schiller Institute states:

“The task of the Frankfurt School, then, was first, to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy through an ‘abolition of culture’ (Aufhebung der Kultur in Lukacs’ German); and, second, to determine new cultural forms which would increase the alienation of the population, thus creating a ‘new barbarism’.”

It goes on to point out those funding the Frankfurt School:

“Although the Institute for Social Research started with Comintern [Communism International] support, over the next three decades its sources of funds included various German and American universities, the Rockefeller Foundation, Columbia Broadcasting System, the American Jewish Committee, several American intelligence services, the Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, the International Labour Organization, and the Hacker Institute, a posh psychiatric clinic in Beverly Hills.”

the Frankfurt School was founded by a bunch of wealthy marxists who happened to be jews and as Hitler rose to power they fled Germany to Geneva and than US universities where they kept on working to this day., the legacy can be seen in Critical Race Theory.
........................

Postmodernism, brought from France, in the collages of the United States in the 1960's, Postmodernism provided an attitude of cynicism and rejection of Enlightenment rationality, effectively allowing the "oppressed" to assume as well as invent any new identity they wished over the upcoming decades. After all, as postmodernist would see it, there is no reality anymore and science does not count. Therefore, identierians could identify themselvse as any minority they wanted and even invent new categories. eg. Non-Binary Lesbians Feel Marginalized.

Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction, post-structuralism, and institutional critique, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson.

“Postmodernity means the exhilarating freedom to pursue anything, yet mind-boggling uncertainty as to what is worth pursuing and in the name of what one should pursue it.” ― Zygmunt Bauman

Roger Scruton made a key observation, which is that feminist understood, they cannot win in direct competition with men, so in a sneaky way they saw opportunity in hijacking the language of the sociaty and turning it into political weapon.

"As far back as 1949 the seminal feminist thinker Simone de Beauvoir made this programmatic recommendation: “Language is inherited from a masculine society and contains many male prejudices . . . Women simply have to steal the instrument; they don’t have to break it or try a priori to make it something totally different. Steal it and use it for their own good” (1972, p. 123)."

And indeed they tried to do this with sex and gender. "During the 1970s American feminists seized on the idea of gender as a social construct, and used it to hide the truth about sex as a biological destiny. By replacing the word “sex” with the word “gender” they imagined that they could achieve at a stroke what their ideology required of them – to rescue sex from biology and to recast it as a complex social choice." (December 2002/January 2003, p. 1)

This lead to creation of a monster. Trans movement which now is the enemy of the very same feminists that created it. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the danger of letting politically ambitious people play with language. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Now Translunitcs are attacking on one end feminists because they say trans women are not women and they attack new threat of trans racial because they are threat to the whole White supremacy narrative.

I now identify as black and Black Lives Matter, so fuck off.

@JacksonNought "Nazis were born of Conservatism and Nationalism and Racism. Nazis dreamed of a utopia of ethnic cleansing and white supremacy and Christian dominionism, all originating from Conservative and Right-Wing ideologies."

This is getting tiresome. You have no clue of history or ideology, just regurgitating what you herd by the lefty indoctrination machine.

You don't even know where right and left wing terms come from or what they mean do you? Off course not. Nor do you know anything about history of Nazis.

Hell, you don't even understand conservatism, neither in practice or theory.

Since no matter what I write or show is enough for you to not see the world trough dogma, there is little point of trying to show you have no clue what you are talking about, so I'll leave it at that.

@JacksonNought I could go on and point out both the flaws or Orwell and your use of quotes of him, but what would be the point, you are fixed in your dogmatic worldview and don't seem to have desire or capacity for critical thinking. So even if I explain it all, you would not get it would you? And if you want to prove me wrong, I posted more than enough of your previous questions.

But I will leave this and say that my country of Croatia is more or less democratic socialism because it came out of failed communist state and so socialism or welfare state looms large, but it pretends to be a democracy. Like virtually all other states after soviet black failed.

The origins of democratic socialism can be traced to 19th-century utopian socialist thinkers and the British Chartist movement that somewhat differed in their goals yet all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production as positive characteristics of the society they advocated for. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, democratic socialism was also influenced by social democracy. The gradualist form of socialism promoted by the British Fabian Society and Eduard Bernstein's evolutionary socialism in Germany influenced the development of democratic socialism. Democratic socialism is what most socialists understand by the concept of socialism. It may be a very broad or more limited concept, referring to all forms of socialism that are democratic and reject an authoritarian Marxist–Leninist state. Democratic socialism is a broad label and movement that includes forms of libertarian socialism, market socialism, reformist socialism and revolutionary socialism as well as ethical socialism, liberal socialism, social democracy and some forms of state socialism and utopian socialism.

Democratic socialism is contrasted to Marxism–Leninism which democratic socialists perceive as being authoritarian or undemocratic in practice. Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and the Soviet-type economic system, rejecting the perceived authoritarian form of governance and the centralised administrative-command system that formed in the Soviet Union and other Marxist–Leninist states during the 20th century

Similarly, anti-communist academic Richard Pipes argued: "The merger of political and economic power implicit in socialism greatly strengthens the ability of the state and its bureaucracy to control the population. Theoretically, this capacity need not be exercised and need not lead to growing domination of the population by the state. In practice, such a tendency is virtually inevitable. For one thing, the socialization of the economy must lead to a numerical growth of the bureaucracy required to administer it, and this process cannot fail to augment the power of the state. For another, socialism leads to a tug of war between the state, bent on enforcing its economic monopoly, and the ordinary citizen, equally determined to evade it; the result is repression and the creation of specialized repressive organs.

Which is the case in my country. Precisely for those reasons. It is inevitable.

@Krunoslav geez, why do I even bother. You aren't operating in reality. You are a mindless drone, repeating the talking points spoon fed to you.

You keep saying you didn't say things you said before. You have yet to explain, in your own words, how being gay is equivalent to Communism and how wanting women to have civil rights is equivalent to Communism. No, you just post memes and random YouTube videos and random quotes to try and justify your argument. Joe Schmoe once said Feminism is Communism, therefore it is true - that is your whole argument.

Oh no, I couldn't possibly know anything about the history of Nazis. It's not like I am a Jew or anything. It's not like I had family in the Holocaust. Oh wait, no, that actually is all true. Fuck off. I know more about this subject then you could possibly hope to. You are once again repeating the talking points your masters chose for you. No different than those people who try to pretend Hitler was an Atheist and not a Christian to claim Christianity has never been used for evil. You are a blind fool.

@JacksonNought As any good lefty you are projecting your own pathology onto others. Good luck with that.

@Krunoslav haha. Yeah I guess you would know a thing or two about projection. Your hero Trump is the king of it. Perhaps he is the monarch you so desire.

@JacksonNought I forgot to mention that you also apparently suffer from sever case of TDS.