Oh I could not resist. The vaults of youtube stupidity and offhand reactions are rich on this one, to the point of being blandly monotonous. Marxist! Defund! Paid for by our taxes!
Nowhere is his name mentioned, so the edited video could be debunked easily.

Even from this artificially short excerpt it is easy to see that in the first half he is describing not his own views but those of Coca Cola corporatespeak. In the second half he is explaining what Coca Cola means by that shit.

Nowhere does he add his own views on the matter at hand, so he could well be trying to warn the world that Coca Cola is doing it wrong. Or vice versa. Except someone edited out the facts and meaning and left just trollfood.

She didn't use illegal funds from BLM. She is a hypocrite of the highest order though. Of course, most rich people are, regardless of race.

1. She never took a salary from BLM: False. BLM stated they paid her 120k a year.

2. There is no proof she bought the houses or owns them: False, she admitted in interviews and statements she bought them for her family and herself. I question also that she is giving these homes to family, since she said herself that they disowned her and kicked out at 16 when she came out as queer. I can't find proof to counter that she gave them to family members, so that is just an opinion.

3. She is an avowed Marxist and Socialist, yet she is pursuing capitalist ideals hardcore. She tries to worm her way around this in her interview, but the Left themselves are criticizing her for doing this.

4. Wherever there is a white-dominant space, deep racism exists as well - no matter how progressive. If you cut too far into that progressive, if you do something that's too radical, white racism will emerge. - Patrisse Cullors: Also buys 1.4 million expansive property in Topanga Canyon district, which is 88% white and 1.8% black. Why would she want to live someplace where, per her previous quotes, deep racism exists?

So fighting non violence with violence?
That's what been going on.

Gang and in Thugs as in not Cops?
BLM seem to strictly protesting against Cops.
Marxist BLM would serve their community better if they would march against those actually killing blacks in large #s.


Cops aren't the issue.

As long no RHINO/ Liberals/ Communists/ Marxist in charge.
Google developed this?

These are those who buy into this shit.

Those who stand on the Constitution will keep this at bay.

communist
marxist
socialist
leftist

so do you only take what's in common with these things or is it all added together

Richard Wolff: a "Marxist" whose solution to capitalism is capitalism.

It isn't though. Those are socialist aspects of our society. We decided collectively that those are good things for society and we all pitch in to make them a reality. We actively WANT socialist programs, and we benefit from them every day. You allow your ignorance to cloud your perceptions. Stop confusing Marxist socialism with democratic socialism.

@Trancecoach

nice article.
explains much in regards to the evolution of germanys social market economy,the reasons and motivations.was a rather enjoyable read.

it still does not excuse your own hackery,but it does explain how germanys more marxist socialism was failing and needed to be adapted to a more free market enterprise.that by itself,did not create a free market capitalism though,it changed the dynamic of a marxist socialist economy that was failing to meet the needs of a country that imported way more than it exported.

in the end it was still a social market economy with the market expanded.

we all need to evolve and adapt ,and elements of free market capitalism is well equipped to do just that.so bravo for germany.

Truth is today's feminists don't even know what objectification is. Mainstream POP music literally advocates rape. It encourages and teaches millions of young boys how to con a "bitches's" trust, sleep with her under false pretenses and and then break off any future contact.

So pop/rap culture celebrating/teaching boys how to rape women isn't considered by marxist feminists as objectification but some nerd rubbing one out to a softcore hand-drawn picture of a woman is "hardcore sexism". It's no wonder most women don't take feminism seriously.

I can't wait for Fox News to denounce Madison as a pinko-commie-marxist for explicitly stating that there are social classes.

According to hermeneuticians, economics is apparently a matter of popular opinion. Ostriches. Like someone shot in the belly but continuing to work, ignoring the fact that he's bleeding out does not obviate the fact.

Collectivist anarchy cannot exist, unless what you mean by "anarchy" is chaos, for reasons already stated. But in the abstract, yes, you can advocate some sort of incoherence like anarcho-syndcalism and still call it anarchy. That's why some like to specify and call the (in my opinion) more coherent and desirable anarchism, libertarian anarchy or anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism, or voluntaryism. Any type of communalism or syndicate requires rulers to administer the "communal," which, unless unanimously selected, is in direct contrast with the purpose of anarchism (which means "without rulers"). And then you have the problem of coming up with and enforcing the "communal" rules without engaging in aggression.

Perhaps "we are getting snagged on definitions." I am not clear on your position so it could be the disagreements have to do with definitions. If you redefine socialism in a non-Marxist way, maybe you can make libertarian socialism coherent.

If you can come up with a social organization that involves zero initiation of violence against persons or their property, then whatever you want to call it, it agrees with libertarian anarchy.

Let me define the basic principle of the anarchism that I favor, to avoid semantic problems: non-aggression means never initiating violence against any individual or their property.
Property can only be a scarce resource. Non-scarce resources cannot be property or owned. You acquire property through homesteading, first appropriation, voluntary trade, or inheritance.
Legally, you can enforce contracts/voluntary agreements, and punish any violations of a person's "self" or property, meaning you can enforce non-aggression.
This view I call anarchy-capitalism, libertarian anarchy, or voluntaryism.
Or free market anarchy.

You will typically find it easier to get a Marxist to work with a Capitalist before getting an Atheist to work with a Theist.

Economic analysis from a marxist perspective can be dangerous to your health. You might develop an untamable urge to urinate on any Tories you might run across in the streets, after which you'll have your spinal curvature readjusted by a bunch of rozzers with nightsticks.

Imagine what it's like over here: a leading figure of our opposition is an outspoken communist of Iranian heritage, who also happens to be just about the only macroeconomist in parliament. You can literally see the cognitive dissonance in peoples' heads when she's presenting her case.

@enoch, if I sound evangelical, it's because I have an allergic reaction to misinformation and a deep aversion to disinformation...

Here are my comments, interspersed:

> and how come all your examples are the european countries that got fucked
> in the ass by corrupt currency and derivative speculators?"

By corrupt currency, do you mean the Euro? These are a big percentage of the so-called "1st world countries."

> are you working for goldman sachs?
> whats the deal man?

Are these borderline ad hominem, or did I miss something...

> denmark? finland?

Is that it, do you want to limit the evidence to the scandinavian countries? Fine, list for me the countries you want me to address and compare to the US or more free market economies and we will proceed from there.

> but its apparent you dont know shit about socialism.
> socialism-communism=not the same.

Personal attacks aside, communism is a type of socialism in the Marxist sense. But to clarify, please define 'socialism' as you think it should be defined, if something other than public control over the means of production.

> and no free market carny barker never seems to want to talk about.

Are you getting upset about something, or are you not calling me a "free market carny barker"?

> 1.how do you fix the currency issue with its pyramid scheme?

What is the currency issue? The central bank's monopoly in currency? You get rid of legal tender laws and let people decide what currency they want to use and accept.

> 2.how do create a level playing field for the wage slave? or debt slave?

You have to be more specific as to what "level playing field means in practice" so that I can answer this.

> 3.or can you outright buy people?

Do you mean slaves? No, that goes against free-market non-aggression and self-ownership principles.

> 4.since nothing is communal and there is no regulation.is there anything that
> cannot be commodified?

Again, please be more specific about what you mean by "commodified." Do you mean are you free to buy and sell anything as long as you don't violate self and property rights? Not clear what you mean here but I'm sure with some clarification I can address it.

> look man.i get it.lots of good things can happen with a free market. but so can
> a lot of bad. eyes open my man.

Sure, but please tell me, what specifically bad can happen in a free market that cannot happen as bad or worse in a non-free market?

> reminds me of the scientist who came up with game theory.
> from the rand institute i think. the whole cold war was set up on this dudes
> principles of self-interest. did a bunch of testing on dudes and the data
> seemed conclusive...until he did the same experiment with secretaries. turns
> but they were unwilling to dick each other over and were more prone to co-
> operate with each other.

How is this relevant? People like to cooperate. That's the basis for the voluntary free market and why it works.

> well how about them apples.co-operation as a way on interacting. ya dont
> say? very interesting.

I agree. Voluntary interaction equals cooperation. That is the free market. Coercion is the non-free market. Is there disagreement here, because I don't see it.

> i know we both agree that what we have now is a clusterfuck.
> and i agree that the free market should have a place,that its even vital. but
> unrestricted free markets? naw..no thanks.

I still don't know the specifics of how exactly you want to "restrict it" and how specifically you want to restrict it. You must forgive me if I don't think you are as competent to restrict me and my life and my business and I myself am. The same with your life and business, I am not qualified to restrict it.
Who is then? Specifically, "who" do you want to restrict you, and your freedom to engage in free trade?