I often read here in OPP how those who defend the ideas of the socialist left are confused with the "liberals", who really are considered l*****ts in the political spectrum; but they are not socialists, having passed the liberals (according to historical development) to be moderate l*****ts, who tend to centrism, sharing this tendency with the moderate conservatives, who are on the right in the political spectrum. What would serve to describe the political position of the members of the Republican and Democratic parties of a few decades ago.
Currently, the Democratic Party is in the process of being totally abducted by the Marxists, who, concealing their true purposes, pose as "liberals", in order not to scare American society; although each day they distance themselves more from the liberal idea; and the wolf begins little by little to show his hairy ear, when certain personalities of that party declare to be "progressive" or frankly "socialist". The latter pretend total state control and for this purpose they develop clientelism, through the application of social welfare measures, the protection of privileges for minorities and m**************m, with a policy of borders open to immigration, in order to obtain v**es that could make their pretensions come true.

Between the end of the 18th century and the middle of the 19th century, a new type of State was developed that has been called "liberal" and has a double aspect: political and economic. The liberal doctrine in the political is based on the existence of an inviolable constitution that determines the rights and duties of citizens and rulers; separation of powers (legislative, executive and judicial), with respect to civil and individual liberties (freedom of expression, association, assembly) to avoid any tyranny and the right to v**e; taking into consideration the majority and minorities. The first liberal Constitution in history was adopted in 1787 by the confederation of the thirteen American colonies that had become independent from England. Many think that a totalitarian government is not possible in the USA because this Constitution exists, forgetting that this magna carta can be modified, when the majorities so decide.

Along with this political liberalism, it was also established the economic liberalism: a set of theories and practices that, to a large extent, were a consequence of the industrial revolution. From the point of view of practice, economic liberalism meant the non-intervention of the state in social, financial and business issues. At the technical level, it was an attempt to explain and justify the phenomenon of industrialization and its most immediate consequences: the great capitalism and the hardships of the working classes.

Socialism is a system totally contrary to liberal ideas. In the economic sphere, it is based on the state ownership of the means of production, the collective administration of them and of the distribution of goods; what implies a planning and an organization of social life, which attempts against individual freedom that is sacrificed for the sake of collective well-being. "Socialism" and "totalitarianism" are synonymous with "collectivism"; and this, in turn, is a model of organization incompatible with human freedom.

The socialists intend to distribute the wealth that others create, as long as they do not achieve total control of society, promoting laws to grant benefits that can only be granted while capitalism exists and there are those who pay taxes to cover the benefits granted; but everything said before changes when the Socialists achieve totalitarian control of society, because together with the capitalism the wealth stops existing and begins the unequal distribution of misery, which does not affect the "new ruling class".

It is possible that knowing the disaster that has meant the appropriation of the means of production by the State wherever it has taken place, the Marxists pretend momentarily, economically, to desist from the failed "state capitalism" of Soviet socialism, imposed by Lenin and Stalin; and approach (with some modifications), the "capitalism of comrades" of N**i-f*****t socialism (which was more successful by the participation of capitalists) imposed by Mussolini and Hitler. Perhaps they want some kind of F*****t Corporate Chamber that tightly controls the capitalists and the workers, establishing a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in disguise. Politically, they can claim the imposition of "correctly political" provisions as censorship of freedom of expression, which we have already known; and the control of the media, through "unconditional partiality", which we are getting to know in a certain way .-- It may be that, due to the relative economic success of the Chinese c*******ts, they recognize the similarity between f*****t Marxism and the "Market socialism" proposed by Deng Xiao Ping and want to establish a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the style of China, which has accepted private property and capitalism; but it is a unitary centralized state, totally administered by the Chinese C*******t Party (which is the proletariat), with a large national bureaucracy that deals with everything, being authoritarian both in its structure and in its ideology. ---To the spawn that would result of any of the aforementioned chimeras could correspond the name of "Democratic Socialism" which is nothing other than a Marxist "Neo-F*****m".

Of course, for any useful fool who defends the “Democratic Socialism” promoted by Mr. Bernie Sanders (who undoubtedly was a supporter of the establishment of Soviet socialism in the USA during the Cold War), the proposal of this Marxist politician is correct, without thinking what is the purpose that this socialist pursues. Let's see what a useful fool wrote (textually) here in OPP making a comment about this politician: “He is for progressive taxes, a robust labor sector where workers are respected and fairly treated and enjoy the fruits of collective bargaining. Old age pensions and universal health care. Today’s youth are not stupid, they see that they are not getting the opportunity’s that their parents and grandparents had as a birthright. They are s**k of getting screwed by corporate welfare and crony capitalism. The henny penny McCarthyism warning of a c*******t behind every tree rings false when our companies and politicians are in bed with the Chinese, Russians and Arabs.”
Whoever makes this comment forgets that Bernie Sanders was in bed with the Soviets, enemies of the USA, whom he admired and that in the USSR there was no "paradise" of the workers. -----Maybe it is necessary to create again the Un-American Activities Committee.

What you stingy right wingers keep misconscrueing as socialisim are government safety nets for the less capable in a competitive society.You think that every one that is a beneficiary of such programs are shysters and because it is ran by the government that makes it marxist;whom else would it be ran by other than the goverment whose responsibility is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves ; what private entity could undertake a perpetual humanitarian social nesscesity that is prerequisite in any civilized society be it Marxist or Democratic.Show me a society that does not facilitate such humanitarian gestures and I'll show you Anarchy,I'll show you the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest society's and amongst them I'll show you society's that are not society's at all.I'll show you jungles of Peru,with animal kingdoms.
The need arose for the exploitive capiltilist to be regulated ;they we're mis-using the concept.You ridicule Bernie Saunders,and the Democrats,but skim over Trump's friendly association with the Socialist Russia that far exceeds any thing Saunders and the Democrats ever have done.

What you stingy right wingers keep misconscrueing as socialisim are government safety nets for the less capable in a competitive society.You think that every one that is a beneficiary of such programs are shysters and because it is ran by the government that makes it marxist;whom else would it be ran by other than the goverment whose responsibility is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves ; what private entity could undertake a perpetual humanitarian social nesscesity that is prerequisite in any civilized society be it Marxist or Democratic.Show me a society that does not facilitate such humanitarian gestures and I'll show you Anarchy,I'll show you the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest society's and amongst them I'll show you society's that are not society's at all.I'll show you jungles of Peru,with animal kingdoms.
The need arose for the exploitive capiltilist to be regulated ;they we're mis-using the concept.You ridicule Bernie Saunders,and the Democrats,but skim over Trump's friendly association with the Socialist Russia that far exceeds any thing Saunders and the Democrats ever have done.

Let’s see you make comments on socialism and Marxism. I ask you to give me your definitions of socialism and Marxism and then tell me where in the US programs that refer to socialism and Marxism and you can’t give me an informed answer.

You call it an immature and uninformed question so why in hell do you make such statements and can’t answer a simple question what is socialism and Marxism and where it is being used. That’s a dumb statement after all you made the comment. It’s typical of Trump supporters throwing talking points out created by Fox News, Trump and a bunch of republicans but can’t answer a simple question. (WHERE IS THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEING USED)

But that’s okay none of the Trump supporters can answer the simplest questions.