"I'm a Marxist" - Occupy Toronto

A young woman at Occupy Toronto identifies as a Marxist and claims socialism would bring positive change, October 15, 2011. (c) 2011 Paul Brian.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Occupy Toronto
• Marxism
• Socialism
• Occupy Wall Street

[xandery2k]

wow, the interviewer seems like an obnoxious tool who doesn't understand what the term 'socialism' means. FYI it doesn't mean keynesian, regulated capitalism which is what he is suggesting and not what any marxist would advocate.

[SocialistBooks]

Wow, about time this right-wing stooge interviewer (who has been baiting just about everyone with loaded questions about capitalism) actually found what he was looking for: a Marxist. This young socialist laid it down and all the interviewer could do was misidentify 'the state' with 'socialism' and label both 'bad things' in spite of her clear and articulate statements to the contrary .... so what happened to the rest of the the interview? Or did she school you too badly to put it up here?

[dosvsoperator]

We are the Liberals...

...resistance is futile...

[usaf317]

@starmanskye *support

[usaf317]

@starmanskye i am not at all confused about the evils of communsim and socialism. if you find the system of government better in finland or sweden then move there. its that simple. Americans have no desire to become part of some collective! i work for myslef and i pay my own way in life. you want healthcare and college? then get out and earn it...dont expect the rest of us to "chip in" to suppert your lazy ass.

[SarionFetecuse]

@xandery2k As a libertarian if you believe in power absolute in socialism why don't you use that socialism on yourself? It's easy for you to say and go do something to someone else. You socialists are hypocrites! You call for action but do you produce anything for society, do you give back, voluntarily? YOU DON'T, YOU WANT IT FOR FREE! There is no such thing as FREE! It's called SLAVERY! When you expect someone to work for FREE! No matter what you call it!

[SarionFetecuse]

@SocialistBooks Socialism always turns to the state no matter what, because there the first ones who have enough centralize power by decreed by Marx's doctrines to make it "the state" And so they apear like there helping people, and some people go behind him, and the people who resisted fought against them. It's a power struggle, and when the communists turn to arms, they are crossing that line, that creates stalinism. It's always will happen with Marxism.

[starmanskye]

@usaf317 -- You have a very confused grasp of socialism and communism if you think it devolves to keeping one's earnings -- or if you think a modern, progressive state under citizen-rule can even function w/o public expenditures. Your 'argument' assumes an absolutely level playing field of self-reliant sufficiency is even possible let alone feasable. The US is far less democratic, just, equitable & rewarding than several socialist nations, such as Sweden or Finland. Your beliefs are faith-based.

[starmanskye]

@WhiteTrashBarbarian -- What kind of 'representation' is it when the corporate, financial & military powers carefully arrange which 'choices' you are allowed to 'vote' for? And if by some chance the public votes differently than they should, electronic elections make vote-rigging simple & foolproof, ie. the 2004 'election' of Bush. Local, regional & national councils are democracy-enabling, hardly the rigid corporate-dominated plutocracy of an unaccountable technocratic bureaucracy, eh?