NYC Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani - The Ugly Face Of NeoMarxism

[phoenix2020]

What is “neo” about it

According to post #3, it's not just neo but NEO.

I'm guessing it has something to do with this guy.

 

[Real blank]

Acccording to post #3, it's not just neo but NEO.

I stand corrected

 

[aociswundumho]

GDP is a terrible indicator unless you normalize it to account for embargo effects imposed upon Cuba from the outside.

Of course it's America's fault. Socialist Cuba is a dirt poor totalitarian shithole all because it can't trade with an evil capitalist country.

 

[reflechissez]

The left has yet to be properly owned by you. You haven't even been able to standardize on a single form of Neo-Marxism. If you truly wanted to own the left, you wouldn't have resorted to boring toothless has-beens like Neo-Marxism, and instead brought out the big guns, like Neo-neoMarxism or Neo-Marxism Pro Max.

 

[phoenix2020]

Of course it's America's fault. Socialist Cuba is a dirt poor totalitarian shithole all because it can't trade with an evil capitalist country.

Don't get me wrong, normalizing your graph to account for external impacts would take time and effort and we know that doesn't fly with MAGA who prefer simple talking points to copy and paste. So, I wasn't expecting you to do better. Still, it's sad to watch you flop before @Tigerace117 of all people.

 

[aociswundumho]

Don't get me wrong, normalizing your graph to account for external impacts would take time and effort

I am getting you wrong because you are wrong. It's common knowledge that Cubans were richer under Batista.

Evidence:

Before the Cuban Revolution, in 1958, Cuba had a per-capita GDP of $2,363, which placed it in the middle of Latin American countries at the time.

More:

One way to make this generalization vivid is to consider the following. In 1950, Cuba ranked seventh in per capita GDP in (the 47 countries of) Latin America (and Caribbean). The order was Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala, and (nearly tied for sixth place) Cuba. If a nation is represented by its per capita GDP ranking, Cuba was thus highly ranked in Latin America (although, even then, as we will momentarily consider, Cuban per capita GDP ranked lower than the Latin American per capita GDP - there were many more Argentines than Cubans).

A half century later, in 2001, Cuba was the third poorest country in Latin America as measured by per capita GDP. Only Nicaragua and poorest-of-the-poor Haiti ranked lower. In two generations, Cuba fell from ranking as one of the more prosperous countries in Latin America to being one of the poorest. More recently (the latest figures are for 2006) the Cuban economy has grown respectably, but it is too soon to pronounce a trend.

 

[Eriech]

If the issue is tax cuts for the wealthy you will soon find you are on the 20% side. Same with cutting Medicaid and SNAP. Just because a bunch of
Republicans lacked the balls to stand up to trump, and chose trump over their own constituents does not mean you are on the 80% side.
2026 is coming.

All Democrats and a couple of republicans voted for a massive tax increase on everyone who pays taxes. The 2017 tax cuts are now permanent. Yes, able bodied people will need to work to be elligable for medicaid and snap. No more sitting in the basement and smoking weed playing call of dury and collecting benefits. Tax dollars will not be diverted from these programs to fund foreign nationals here illegally. Both will be funded by more than last year.....only in Washington is that a cut.

 

[reinaert]

All Democrats and a couple of republicans voted for a massive tax increase on everyone who pays taxes. The 2017 tax cuts are now permanent. Yes, able bodied people will need to work to be elligable for medicaid and snap. No more sitting in the basement and smoking weed playing call of dury and collecting benefits. Tax dollars will not be diverted from these programs to fund foreign nationals here illegally. Both will be funded by more than last year.....only in Washington is that a cut.

Talking points are pointy.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

 

[trixare4kids]

Kristen Welker: "Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?"

Mamdani: [laughs] "I don't think that we should have billionaires."

Welker: "'Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods?' Explain why you're bringing race into your tax proposal."

Mamdani: "That is just an description of what we see right now - it's not driven by race. It's more of an assessment of what neighborhoods are being undertaxed versus overtaxed. We've seen time and again that this is a property tax system that is inequitable."




Not in the video:

"My mother fled communist Cuba to not live in a communist New York. We need to defeat [Mamdani] because he's very dangerous to the future of the city – both from an economic standpoint and a public safety standpoint." NY Representative Nicole Malliotakis

"Frankly, for Democrats, this is a time for choosing. Do they align themselves with a radical socialist who engages in antisemitism, hates the police, believes that illegal immigrants should have free everything, and you know, is basically going to destroy the finances of New York City? They can't have it both ways." - NY Representative Mike Lawler

Obviously, newbie Mamdani doesn't believe that individuals should have great wealth. Mamdani and others who are like him should be kicked to the curb. They are flies in the ointment, and they are dangerous. Let's not be taken in, and believe that men like Mamdani do not really know about the tenets of personal, individual freedom as espoused by John Locke and our founding fathers. They know, but in order for them to gain steam they are going to bullshit the people who have little wealth. PT Barnum warned us about snake oil salesmen like Mamdani and so did our Founding Fathers, particularly figures like Madison and Jefferson who warned us about the liberty-robbing charlatans like Mamdani.

Happy 4th everyone! We might disagree with one another's politics, and that's okay, but let's all agree that freedom rings when we remember we all basically agree, love freedom, but disagree with the way to keep it real.

 

[reinaert]

Obviously, newbie Mamdani doesn't believe that individuals should have great wealth. Mamdani and others who are like him should be kicked to the curb. They are flies in the ointment, and they are dangerous. Let's not be taken in, and believe that men like Mamdani do not really know about the tenets of personal, individual freedom as espoused by John Locke and our founding fathers. They know, but in order for them to gain steam they are going to bullshit the people who have little wealth. PT Barnum warned us about snake oil salesmen like Mamdani and so did our Founding Fathers, particularly figures like Madison and Jefferson who warned us about the liberty-robbing charlatans like Mamdani.

Happy 4th everyone! We might disagree with one another's politics, and that's okay, but let's all agree that freedom rings when we remember we all basically agree, love freedom, but disagree with the way to keep it real.

Someone doesn't know Thom Paine.

 

[Tigerace117]

I am getting you wrong because you are wrong. It's common knowledge that Cubans were richer under Batista.

Evidence:



More:

It’s common knowledge the vast majority of Cubans never saw any of that supposed wealth. The U.S., on the other hand, was able to loot the island for everything it could….which is the real reason why America was so mad over its colonial rule there being crushed.

 

[Tigerace117]

I don't think semantic games are worth the time.

And because I sense where this is heading, no, I do not think Mamdani is Stalin. I do think he's playing too close to that edge.

Saying this random guy is even in the same universe as Stalin is ludicrous.

 

[Tigerace117]

They were also brutally repressed by the Castro regime.



No, the Marxist tyrant was worse. Castro murdered 10x more people than Batista.



GDP is a good indicator. The cuban revolution was in 1959:

View attachment 67577960

And yet when the U.S. sponsored an invasion to supposedly “liberate” them, the Cuban people…refused to support it.

Decades of American state sponsored terrorism against them hasn’t changed their minds either.

In the minds of the Americans looting Cuba for everything they could, he was. Oh, and the literal Mafia, can’t forget them

The U.S. explicitly set Cuba up as a colony, with control over what countries it could interact with on the globe stage. It invaded a half a dozen times to keep Cubans under the American jackboot.

And that isn’t even getting into the invaluable role Cuban soldiers played in the fight for freedom in Africa. Alongside the Soviets they helped shield Angola and Mozambique from their neighbor’s aggression time and again

The fact Castro’s basically been dead for a decade yet the Cuban regime is firmly in control is a clear sign.

 

[phoenix2020]

Happy 4th everyone! We might disagree with one another's politics, and that's okay, but let's all agree that freedom rings when we remember we all basically agree, love freedom, but disagree with the way to keep it real.

When you have the Democrats demonizing LE and others doing work for the benefit of society, what do you expect? LE is wondering if the shooters intentionally set the fire so they could shoot at first responders.

 

[BirdinHand]

The only thing that saved the rich was WWI

Wars have been rich people with power fighting amongst themselves and getting poor people killed since the dawn on human civilization.

I think we should start putting them on the front lines and let the average people stay back.

Mamdani's radical leftist views do NOT reflect "actual America”

Says who? And who is “actual America”?

The 2017 tax cuts are now permanent

You act as though another Congress doesn’t have the ability to change taxes.

Nothing is “permanent” - many of the benefits of this bill for average income Americans have an actual expiration date.

And tax rates can always be changed

Obviously, newbie Mamdani doesn't believe that individuals should have great wealth.

He doesn’t believe there should be billionaires - and that’s not exactly a radical thought.

Mamdani and others who are like him should be kicked to the curb. They are flies in the ointment, and they are dangerous.

Actually, he’s rather refreshing.

Let's not be taken in, and believe that men like Mamdani do not really know about the tenets of personal, individual freedom as espoused by John Locke and our founding fathers

John Locke believed that money is what allows for personal property rights to surpass what one needs to exist. He also believed that because of natural law, everyone is entitled to what they need to survive. And that if a society consents to have money, and allow an unequal accumulation of wealth, that society is morally responsible to make sure that everyone’s natural rights to have access to what they need is met.

“God has not left one man so to the mercy of another that he may starve him if he pleases... As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry... so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another's plenty as will keep him from extreme want."
(First Treatise of Government, Section 42)

 

[BirdinHand]

Someone doesn't know Thom Paine.

Or John Locke apparently

 

[Eriech]

Wars have been rich people with power fighting amongst themselves and getting poor people killed since the dawn on human civilization.

I think we should start putting them on the front lines and let the average people stay back.

Says who? And who is “actual America”?

You act as though another Congress doesn’t have the ability to change taxes.

Nothing is “permanent” - many of the benefits of this bill for average income Americans have an actual expiration date.

And tax rates can always be changed


He doesn’t believe there should be billionaires - and that’s not exactly a radical thought.


Actually, he’s rather refreshing.

John Locke believed that money is what allows for personal property rights to surpass what one needs to exist. He also believed that because of natural law, everyone is entitled to what they need to survive. And that if a society consents to have money, and allow an unequal accumulation of wealth, that society is morally responsible to make sure that everyone’s natural rights to have access to what they need is met.

“God has not left one man so to the mercy of another that he may starve him if he pleases... As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry... so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another's plenty as will keep him from extreme want."
(First Treatise of Government, Section 42)

Permanent as in not facing a sunset. No doubt President Vance will want to lower taxes even more.

 

[Grand Mal]

Zorahn Mamdani is a NEOMarxist. It's important to make the distinction between the two.

The NeoMarxist will use race as a tool to divide the social classes. The classical Marxist does not use race to divide the social classes.

Bullshit rightist crap

 

[SkyChief]

Says who? And who is “actual America”?

I responded to the following (misleading) statement:

Republicans are in so much trouble dealing with actual America over the next two to three decades. So much trouble.

I used his term "actual America" to reflect reality, and not a distortion of it. The truth is actual America is fed up neoMarxism - including many democrats. I have friends (a married couple) who until recently were lifelong democrats, but they cut all ties with the Democratic Party and are now registered independents. Dems defecting from the Party is fairly common.

John Locke believed that money is what allows for personal property rights to surpass what one needs to exist. He also believed that because of natural law, everyone is entitled to what they need to survive. And that if a society consents to have money, and allow an unequal accumulation of wealth, that society is morally responsible to make sure that everyone’s natural rights to have access to what they need is met.

I totally disagree. John Locke never said (or even implied) that. That is a gross misinterpretation of what Locke meant by a natural right to have property. Locke concluded that the Old Testament invalidates divine-right monarchy and supports the doctrine of natural freedom.

“God has not left one man so to the mercy of another that he may starve him if he pleases... As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry... so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another's plenty as will keep him from extreme want."
(First Treatise of Government, Section 42)

Here, Locke argued against the divine right of kings and for The Natural Freedom of Mankind. He's not saying or implying that poor people have a right to take the property of a richer man - if they need it.

That construct was invented by Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engles). "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

 

[The Brad Dad]

I used his term "actual America" to reflect reality, and not a distortion of it. The truth is actual America is fed up neoMarxism - including many democrats. I have friends (a married couple) who until recently were lifelong democrats, but they cut all ties with the Democratic Party and are now registered independents.

This never happened lol

 

[BirdinHand]

I responded to the following (misleading) statement:



I used his term "actual America" to reflect reality, and not a distortion of it. The truth is actual America is fed up neoMarxism - including many democrats. I have friends (a married couple) who until recently were lifelong democrats, but they cut all ties with the Democratic Party and are now registered independents. Dems defecting from the Party is fairly common.

I totally disagree. John Locke never said (or even implied) that. That is a gross misinterpretation of what Locke meant by a natural right to have property. Locke concluded that the Old Testament invalidates divine-right monarchy and supports the doctrine of natural freedom.


Here, Locke argued against the divine right of kings and for The Natural Freedom of Mankind. He's not saying or implying that poor people have a right to take the property of a richer man - if they need it.

That construct was invented by Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engles). "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

You don’t know Locke very well. He did not believe in individuals living lavish lifestyles while others lived in abject poverty. He was fine with inequality, but he believed strongly it was the responsibility of those who accumulated wealth to make sure no one went without their needs met, because to allow them to do such would be violating their natural rights.

 

[NatMorton]

You'd think we could find some kind of comfortable middle ground, right? One where we can tax the wealthy but also avoid human rights violations. Personally, I'm not worried about Zohran Mamdani becoming the next Pol Pot. Are you?

We already tax the wealthy and they pay, by far, the lion's share of federal taxes. But Mandani isn't merely saying we should tax the very wealthy. He's saying we should eliminate them.

 

[NatMorton]

But that's a good thing, isn't it? It's good to take old ideas and adapt them for different times and circumstances. Humans have always done that, and been quite successful at it too.

No, I think switching from class warfare to race warfare as a method for gaining political power is a bad thing becoming an equally bad thing.

 

[NatMorton]

Saying this random guy is even in the same universe as Stalin is ludicrous.

Why? They're both Socialists. And it never starts out as evil. Do you think in 1917 the Bolsheviks believed they were creating history's greatest killing machine?