Communism vs Free World= Kamala vs Trump.

[Free Market Capitalist]

In case it is not clear what is at stake in the upcoming US elections, it is necessary to remind ourselves of this:

VP Kamala Harris touts EQUITY: "Everybody should end up in the same place"

As much as she would deny being a communist if asked explicitly, she cannot hide it. She clearly says that everyone should not only start from the same place, which is impossible, but end up in the same place. And who would guarantee that? She does, a communist politician, who promises to achieve this through state planning.

Whenever this ideology has been tried to be implemented, it has always ended in the same way: genocides that make Hitler look like an amateur, political repression, massive population, exoduses, famines, etc. There is not a single time that such a political system has been tried and has not ended in atrocious dictatorships and genocide. And at the same time, the more people have killed that system and the more it has failed, the more popular it is with university professors and posh billionaires.

No Mrs. Harris, do not deceive people. In the civilised world we should be equal in rights and opportunities but neither equal in birth nor of course equal in results thanks to a politician, because in the same way that there are working people there are lazy people, also there are people who invest what they earn and there are people who spend it on whores and cocaine, so no, do not come here with a story of Alice in Wonderland to promise the impossible, as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro and Maduro among others did.

We have an election discussion thread but I didn't want this to be buried on a secondary page because this is the main issue at stake in this election: free world vs. price controls, censorship, impoverishment of the population caused by the policies taken and blaming it on capitalism, repression of individual freedom and so on and so forth.

Dedicated to my lefty friends suchmoon, paxmao and the rest.

[BADecker]

Gradually people are seeing through the Cabala lies. You can only cover gravel up with delicious looking frosting for so long, before people will figure out their is gravel underneath.

Remember the old adage:
You can fool all the people some of the time, and
You can fool some of the people all the time, but
You can't fool all the people all of the time.

Cabala is losing it.

[TwitchySeal]

You're not going to like to hear this, but communism is not about "equal outcomes".   It's about equal distribution or access/availability of goods and services through a market and economy fully controlled by the state.

In a communist society, people don't own property.  There are no free markets.

It's ironic, but Marx would agree with a lot of the arguments being made by right wingers who include 'communism' and 'equality of outcomes' in their rhetoric (except for what communism is implied to be):

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

- Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme



When Kamala starts suggesting ideas that are distinct to communism, like that we'd be better off without free markets, or getting rid of the concept of private property, then it would make sense to call her a communist.

[nagaechka]

The choice is hard, I'm for the Republicans, but not for Trump.

[Hispo]

In the case of Venezuela, it all started with a socialist experiment led by the ex-president Hugo Chavez, he conquered the heart of the people and the masses with his discourse and his promise to a better nation through the fair distribution of the wealth (petroleum wealth) for the needy and the middle class, disregarding the role of the big businesses and the companies within the country.
I recall the interesting period of time when Chavez himself started to seize and take over companies previously owned by private individuals, most of them have ended up in bankruptcy because of the lack of talent and ability within the ranks of the government itself.
It started with slthe building of socialism in the XXl century, as they started to call it, but has ended up with something similar to facism or kleptocracy.
People using their political point of advantage and position to get as much money as possible from oil and gold, behind the backs of the people of the country.

[suchmoon]

Dedicated to my lefty friends suchmoon, paxmao and the rest.

Thank you, but (1) I don't think I'm "lefty", you seem to be over-extrapolating too much from me not supporting a grifter who happens to be a Republican; and (2) none of what you're complaining about is communism.

Communism the way it was explained to me by the people who literally tried to implement it on my sorry ass means "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" (I think it's a quote from the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" Twitchy referred to above). Basically doing away with money and private property, making everyone work as much as they can (presumably some form of slave/forced labor because there is no other incentive to work), and giving everyone just enough food etc for basic needs. Ironically some entrepreneurs seem to have come closer to implementing this sort of communism - e.g. "company towns", or modern tech startups - than Stalin et al, whose attempts inevitably devolved into corrupt dysfunctional shitholes.

Throwing "communism" around like this defeats whatever point you might be trying to make. Any sane person looks at this and looks at North Korea and knows this is a bullshit argument.

[Free Market Capitalist]

You're not going to like to hear this, but communism is not about "equal outcomes".   It's about equal distribution or access/availability of goods and services through a market and economy fully controlled by the state.

Why wouldn't I like to hear that? You don't explain anything new to me, I know as much about communist theory as you do or more.

In a communist society, people don't own property.

False. To know so much about communist theory you don't understand the basics, what you don't have in communist societies is ownership of the means of production, but people had private possessions like cars, clothes and houses.

Soviet law in Principles and policies

What It Was Like To Buy And Own A Car In The USSR

What items of status did Soviet people own? (PHOTOS)


Then there are societies such as North Korea that restrict property more, and others that restrict it less, but in all of them there is private property, otherwise it would not make sense to have a currency circulating to buy goods and services.

If you start with such falsehood, and above all getting merits for it, lol, it is going to be very difficult to debate.

Are you going to admit that what you have said is false or what?

It's ironic, but Marx would agree with a lot of the arguments being made by right wingers who include 'communism' and 'equality of outcomes' in their rhetoric (except for what communism is implied to be):

Yes, I've heard that nonsense based on a very selective cherry pick many times. I'm sure Marx advocated that the best thing the state can do to improve the lives of individuals is to allow them freedom, mainly with few regulations, few taxes, and respecting freedom of enterprise.

When Kamala starts suggesting ideas that are distinct to communism, like that we'd be better off without free markets, or getting rid of the concept of private property, then it would make sense to call her a communist.

Here the question is that the regimes that ended communist dictatorships, especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have initially tried to dissociate themselves from communism when they are just another variant. Look at what Hispo says, who lives in Venezuela, and who knows first hand what happened there, when it all started with Chavez saying he was “socialist” when in reality he was just another communist.

So now she says nothing about free markets but is in favor of an increasing interventionism and as for private property, just look at how she talks about “children of the community” and you can get an idea of the respect she has for the property and freedom of individuals and their families.

Thank you, but (1) I don't think I'm "lefty", you seem to be over-extrapolating too much from me not supporting a grifter who happens to be a Republican; and (2) none of what you're complaining about is communism.

If you are not lefty I am not right-wing because I believe that the US health care system is garbage and should be changed to one where everyone is cared for without being bankrupt, because I believe that the gambling sector has to be strongly regulated and monitored by the state, and because on moral issues such as abortion, gay marriage and others I tend to converge with leftist positions, although I do not buy into feminazism. If what you mean is that you are a free thinker who happens not to converge with a lot of what Trump says, the same thing happens to me but with Kamala.

Throwing "communism" around like this defeats whatever point you might be trying to make. Any sane person looks at this and looks at North Korea and knows this is a bullshit argument.

Any sane person who looks not only at North Korea but also at what happened in Venezuela, for example, realizes that the only way to implement communism is not overnight. It can also be implemented little by little, step by step, saying that you are not a communist but that it is unfair that the rich earn so much and that the best thing is for the state to take away what they earn so that we are all equal, and the story ends with everyone being equally poor, those who survive.

Kamala is not going to implement a communism overnight, she is going to go little by little. What's more, the latest from the Democratic party is wanting to abolish the first amendment. Have you heard Kerry and Walz talk about it? A project that seems to have been dreamed up by a high ranking Stalinist. Ban what can't be said from a state body, controlled by the Democrats, of course.

[mrust_mobile]

It is funny the USA is starting to resemble the communist Soviet Union where people die from poverty while Russia is slowly becoming like the old patriotic capitalist USA.

Needless to say, fuck communism.

[suchmoon]

False. To know so much about communist theory you don't understand the basics, what you don't have in communist societies is ownership of the means of production, but people had private possessions like cars, clothes and houses.

LOL... houses?

Typical soviet family had to wait years to be able get an allocation to "buy" a car. Even worse with apartments (forget houses; even in rural areas people tended to be forced into multi-tenant buildings), which unless you were high up in the communist party hierarchy you'd be waiting for decades. None of that was a real purchase of course, because the money did not have the value that the government said it would have, and the missing part of that value (the decades-long lines) had to be "earned" with underpaid labor or acquired via bribes/black market/etc.

Even getting basic stuff like socks or sugar often wasn't as simple as going to the store and buying it. There were allocations, limits, queues, party bosses with dibs, etc.

And that wasn't even communism, that was just what they called socialism in progress of building communism. They were partially successful in (almost) getting rid of money, that was quite a feat.

Not sure how you could read the article you linked to and think "yeah that proves soviets had private property" even though it's a lengthy description how far from actual ownership and free market the whole thing was... and then also think that the US is anywhere near that.

Then there are societies such as North Korea that restrict property more, and others that restrict it less, but in all of them there is private property, otherwise it would not make sense to have a currency circulating to buy goods and services.

The "native" currency was worthless, that's the whole point. USD was the real currency in USSR but very few had access to it until late 1980s when the shit really hit the fan. Some goods and services could be used as currency (BADecker would have loved this).

Throwing "communism" around like this defeats whatever point you might be trying to make. Any sane person looks at this and looks at North Korea and knows this is a bullshit argument.

Any sane person who looks not only at North Korea but also at what happened in Venezuela, for example, realizes that the only way to implement communism is not overnight. It can also be implemented little by little, step by step, saying that you are not a communist but that it is unfair that the rich earn so much and that the best thing is for the state to take away what they earn so that we are all equal, and the story ends with everyone being equally poor, those who survive.

Kamala is not going to implement a communism overnight, she is going to go little by little. What's more, the latest from the Democratic party is wanting to abolish the first amendment. Have you heard Kerry and Walz talk about it? A project that seems to have been dreamed up by a high ranking Stalinist. Ban what can't be said from a state body, controlled by the Democrats, of course.

I'm sorry, that's just nonsense. You can take some of Trump's promises and say this leads to communism just as easily. There are some bullshit policies on Kamala's side too, it's fair to ridicule them but again, saying that those things somehow relate to communism is absurd and makes no sense outside of the whatever infobubble you pulled that from.

By the way, soviet regime was (and Russian regime still mostly is) extremely homophobic, xenophobic, tough on whatever it deemed a crime, and peddling massive amounts of fearmongering to keep the population scared and subservient. I wouldn't be surprised if Newt Gingrich and other "architects" of modern GOP learned from that.

[BADecker]

You can take some of Trump's promises and say this leads to communism just as easily.

But you can't take any of Cabala's promises and show that they DON'T lead to Communism.

[suchmoon]

But you can't take any of Cabala's promises and show that they DON'T lead to Communism.

Careful now comrade. You don't want to get deported to Alaska for mangling the name of the Supreme Leader (or maybe you do, in which case I apologize).

[BADecker]

But you can't take any of Cabala's promises and show that they DON'T lead to Communism.

Careful now comrade. You don't want to get deported to Alaska for mangling the name of the Supreme Leader (or maybe you do, in which case I apologize).

Freedom under Trump, even for you.     

[DeathAngel]

I agree that there is a sense of communism in a potential Kamala led government. Well, her handlers prefer to run things that way. The good thing is that it appears Trump is building a significant lead if you believe sources like Polymarket. Trump is a better option for free speech, business & obviously crypto.

[Hispo]

There something I don't understand, though.
If Kamala Harris is such a Deranged socialist/communist as people from the Republican party claims her to be, how come she has secured millions of dollars in donations from corporations like Google? Those corporations and big businesses are all in for capitalism and free market, would not they be commiting a big mistake by donating and helping a communist to get elected into the White House?
Because, as far as I know, communism within the United States would explicitly mean the end of those corporations as we know it, as they would be likely seized by the state or absorbed by the state.
There are also important business people who are well know democrats... so how come those who are rich and own a high percentage of their fortune in shares of companies in Wall street agree to support an alledged communist?

I don't get it.

[BADecker]

There something I don't understand, though.
If Kamala Harris is such a Deranged socialist/communist as people from the Republican party claims her to be, how come she has secured millions of dollars in donations from corporations like Google? Those corporations and big businesses are all in for capitalism and free market, would not they be commiting a big mistake by donating and helping a communist to get elected into the White House? - You need to remember that the control of those big companies is in the hands of the heads of the companies, not the little people. It's like the Politburo in Russia. Those leaders are not the little people.

They like Cabala because she is their puppet that they can turn any way they want. She listens to them, and does what they want. That's how she gets money from them.

They have made money from the policies of the Dem Deep State. One of the ways is the war in Ukraine. They might deplore killing, but they don't have to face it (being in the US), and the money is good... through their media that they get paid by when they support things like the war.
Because, as far as I know, communism within the United States would explicitly mean the end of those corporations as we know it, as they would be likely seized by the state or absorbed by the state. - But the big corporate leaders would be the new Communist leaders in America through their puppets in the formal government.
There are also important business people who are well know democrats... so how come those who are rich and own a high percentage of their fortune in shares of companies in Wall street agree to support an alledged communist?

I don't get it.

It's all about money. Those at the top want more. Those who are share-holders want more. And they are getting more. But look at what it is doing to the US economy.

If the Communism ways were so good, why has Biden's economy brought on such inflation and economic hardship? Cabala would be the same, right?

[Free Market Capitalist]

LOL... houses?

Our discussions remind me of the never-ending story.

The point here is that TwitchySeal has started giving me lessons on communist theory when I am not ignorant of it, far from it, by saying that

In a communist society, people don't own property.

when the fact is that people did own property.

Typical soviet family had to wait years to be able get an allocation to "buy" a car.

I know, I know, it's not the first time I've put this joke on the forum:

Reagan Joke -- Soviet Union and Getting A New Automobile

The fact is that no matter how you put it, in communist countries there is private property, no matter how much you want to put things in quotation marks or how much there are differences with private property in the free world.

And that wasn't even communism, that was just what they called socialism in progress of building communism.

This is what many communists claim (I'm not saying you do), as if to say that real communism has never been implemented and that when it is implemented it will be wonderful. For me it is the opposite, if what has been implemented that has not reached Marx's ideal but almost, if it is implemented what tens of millions of starving and freezing dead will seem like child's play.

On the other hand, I do not know how there are people who take Marx's ideas as a pious person takes the bible. Marx was a violent drunkard who was imprisoned for it and who led a bourgeois life, an example of “do as I say but not as I do”.

Not sure how you could read the article you linked to and think "yeah that proves soviets had private property" even though it's a lengthy description how far from actual ownership and free market the whole thing was... and then also think that the US is anywhere near that.

You seem like a broken record. Look at how Venezuela was in January 1999. Do you think it was anywhere near that?

I'm sorry, that's just nonsense.

It isn't.

You can take some of Trump's promises and say this leads to communism just as easily.

As I responded to TwitchySeal earlier, that's based on very selective cherry-picking. The mainstream measures of political economy have nothing to do with what Marx advocated.

There are some bullshit policies on Kamala's side too, it's fair to ridicule them but again, saying that those things somehow relate to communism is absurd and makes no sense outside of the whatever infobubble you pulled that from.

What is not infobubble no matter how much you want to use that term to disqualify the argument is that Kamala explicitly says she wants a society where everyone ends up equal, and that is a commonality of all communist societies that have been implemented, that everyone ends up equally poor thanks to a state that is dedicated to planning the economy rather than leaving it in the hands of free interacting individuals. What is also not infobubble is the taste for censorship from Democrat/Labor/Socialist positions. What Kamala wants to do is to increase state power and control, in economics not only by increasing regulations and taxes, but by putting in place CBDCs, which are a financial Big Brother, censor what might hurt the Democratic party, and create a population increasingly dependent on the crumbs given to them by the state instead of a population that can stand on its own feet. That has a lot more to do with communism than what Trump wants to do, which is fine with me if he sticks a rocket up his ass and blows himself up, as long as whoever replaces him advocates policies more prone to the free market.

There something I don't understand, though.
If Kamala Harris is such a Deranged socialist/communist as people from the Republican party claims her to be, how come she has secured millions of dollars in donations from corporations like Google? ...

I don't get it.

Good point. In my opinion because the regulations and taxes that the Democrats tend to put in place are easy for those large mega corporations to comply with and difficult for small and medium sized businesses to comply with, thus favoring them. And on the other hand because there is nothing new about the phenomenon of communist wealthy people, such as Marx who, as I have explained before, was a bourgeois.

Then they see themselves as saviors of the world from their billionaire mansions, for example by defending mass immigration, when they do not suffer from it. An example is when the governor of Florida sent a busload of illegal immigrants to Marta's vineyard, a self proclaimed sanctuary against immigration (of billionaires) they didn't even last 24 hours.

[paxmao]

But you can't take any of Cabala's promises and show that they DON'T lead to Communism.

Careful now comrade. You don't want to get deported to Alaska for mangling the name of the Supreme Leader (or maybe you do, in which case I apologize).

Maybe he lives in Alaska, it would explain most of the symptoms.

Venezuela is now the common place to mention to most right and far right parties. It happens not only in the US, but also in Europe. Curiously enough, most of the extreme right and right conveniently forget that authoritarians regimes are mostly doing economically and socially worse and most of them have little in common with communism.

In my view, Trump's policies could be discussed, the problem is that is into changing the political regime (short of an imperfect democracy) for an authoritarian regime. Questioning voting, representatives, the public officials, the judges (while setting his own SCOTUS)... all looks more of a takeover than a political programme.

Again just "play a little game" - what would someone trying to take over a government, whether winning or loosing elections do and say? And now, what is Trump doing and saying?

[Hispo]

...

It's all about money. Those at the top want more. Those who are share-holders want more. And they are getting more. But look at what it is doing to the US economy.

If the Communism ways were so good, why has Biden's economy brought on such inflation and economic hardship? Cabala would be the same, right?

Why has not Google and Amazon, among other big corporations donated millions of dollars to the Communist party of America or the Socialist Party of America, instead they donate much money to the Democrat party. It is interesting, to say the least.

Though, I agree with you when you say all of those donations is about using money to get more money, but it is not through the establishment of a new communist system of government within the USA, all those Wall Street wolves and CEOs are afraid of the authentic left to seize power in the country, that is why they fund the Democrat party, which are progressives but they are capitalist. If there was not as much political division in your country people would realize both the Democrat and Republican party are pretty much running to keep the same capitalist and wealth system in place. It is a good reason why Trump would never dare to "sunset" social security and Kamala would never dare to seize big corporations like Google or Apple, they are all in their position to keep the same people happy. You know.

[BADecker]

But you can't take any of Cabala's promises and show that they DON'T lead to Communism.

Careful now comrade. You don't want to get deported to Alaska for mangling the name of the Supreme Leader (or maybe you do, in which case I apologize).

Maybe he lives in Alaska, it would explain most of the symptoms.

Venezuela is now the common place to mention to most right and far right parties. It happens not only in the US, but also in Europe. Curiously enough, most of the extreme right and right conveniently forget that authoritarians regimes are mostly doing economically and socially worse and most of them have little in common with communism.

In my view, Trump's policies could be discussed, the problem is that is into changing the political regime (short of an imperfect democracy) for an authoritarian regime. Questioning voting, representatives, the public officials, the judges (while setting his own SCOTUS)... all looks more of a takeover than a political programme.

Again just "play a little game" - what would someone trying to take over a government, whether winning or loosing elections do and say? And now, what is Trump doing and saying?

Trump has been saying that the Dem Deep State has already taken over the government, and the thing that he is trying to do is get it back to give to the people. Sure, he might change. Nobody knows. But such is what he was doing his first term... 'giving' to the people.

...

It's all about money. Those at the top want more. Those who are share-holders want more. And they are getting more. But look at what it is doing to the US economy.

If the Communism ways were so good, why has Biden's economy brought on such inflation and economic hardship? Cabala would be the same, right?

Why has not Google and Amazon, among other big corporations donated millions of dollars to the Communist party of America or the Socialist Party of America, instead they donate much money to the Democrat party. It is interesting, to say the least.

Though, I agree with you when you say all of those donations is about using money to get more money, but it is not through the establishment of a new communist system of government within the USA, all those Wall Street wolves and CEOs are afraid of the authentic left to seize power in the country, that is why they fund the Democrat party, which are progressives but they are capitalist. If there was not as much political division in your country people would realize both the Democrat and Republican party are pretty much running to keep the same capitalist and wealth system in place. It is a good reason why Trump would never dare to "sunset" social security and Kamala would never dare to seize big corporations like Google or Apple, they are all in their position to keep the same people happy. You know.

Since the Dem Deep State already has control of Amazon and Google, why would they want to seize them? You can see the control in the lack of media freedom they operate, both in the air waves, and in the books that are being suppressed.

Last year the Social Security increase was a measly 3.2%... way less than inflation. Yet there were $billions given to Ukraine. This shows that the Biden/Cabala Deep State has already "sunsetted" much or most of SS. Trump has expressed that he is of a mind to overturn that "sunsetting."

[TwitchySeal]

LOL... houses?

Our discussions remind me of the never-ending story.

The point here is that TwitchySeal has started giving me lessons on communist theory when I am not ignorant of it, far from it, by saying that

In a communist society, people don't own property.

when the fact is that people did own property.

Typical soviet family had to wait years to be able get an allocation to "buy" a car.

I know, I know, it's not the first time I've put this joke on the forum:

Reagan Joke -- Soviet Union and Getting A New Automobile

The fact is that no matter how you put it, in communist countries there is private property, no matter how much you want to put things in quotation marks or how much there are differences with private property in the free world.

And that wasn't even communism, that was just what they called socialism in progress of building communism.

This is what many communists claim (I'm not saying you do), as if to say that real communism has never been implemented and that when it is implemented it will be wonderful. For me it is the opposite, if what has been implemented that has not reached Marx's ideal but almost, if it is implemented what tens of millions of starving and freezing dead will seem like child's play.

On the other hand, I do not know how there are people who take Marx's ideas as a pious person takes the bible. Marx was a violent drunkard who was imprisoned for it and who led a bourgeois life, an example of “do as I say but not as I do”.

Not sure how you could read the article you linked to and think "yeah that proves soviets had private property" even though it's a lengthy description how far from actual ownership and free market the whole thing was... and then also think that the US is anywhere near that.

You seem like a broken record. Look at how Venezuela was in January 1999. Do you think it was anywhere near that?

I'm sorry, that's just nonsense.

It isn't.

You can take some of Trump's promises and say this leads to communism just as easily.

As I responded to TwitchySeal earlier, that's based on very selective cherry-picking. The mainstream measures of political economy have nothing to do with what Marx advocated.

There are some bullshit policies on Kamala's side too, it's fair to ridicule them but again, saying that those things somehow relate to communism is absurd and makes no sense outside of the whatever infobubble you pulled that from.

What is not infobubble no matter how much you want to use that term to disqualify the argument is that Kamala explicitly says she wants a society where everyone ends up equal, and that is a commonality of all communist societies that have been implemented, that everyone ends up equally poor thanks to a state that is dedicated to planning the economy rather than leaving it in the hands of free interacting individuals. What is also not infobubble is the taste for censorship from Democrat/Labor/Socialist positions. What Kamala wants to do is to increase state power and control, in economics not only by increasing regulations and taxes, but by putting in place CBDCs, which are a financial Big Brother, censor what might hurt the Democratic party, and create a population increasingly dependent on the crumbs given to them by the state instead of a population that can stand on its own feet. That has a lot more to do with communism than what Trump wants to do, which is fine with me if he sticks a rocket up his ass and blows himself up, as long as whoever replaces him advocates policies more prone to the free market.

There something I don't understand, though.
If Kamala Harris is such a Deranged socialist/communist as people from the Republican party claims her to be, how come she has secured millions of dollars in donations from corporations like Google? ...

I don't get it.

Good point. In my opinion because the regulations and taxes that the Democrats tend to put in place are easy for those large mega corporations to comply with and difficult for small and medium sized businesses to comply with, thus favoring them. And on the other hand because there is nothing new about the phenomenon of communist wealthy people, such as Marx who, as I have explained before, was a bourgeois.

Then they see themselves as saviors of the world from their billionaire mansions, for example by defending mass immigration, when they do not suffer from it. An example is when the governor of Florida sent a busload of illegal immigrants to Marta's vineyard, a self proclaimed sanctuary against immigration (of billionaires) they didn't even last 24 hours.

Ok, so Karl Marx is not a valid source for defining the concept of communism.  My mistake.  I assume Engels is also out.

So when was your definition of communism born?  And who is behind it? 

Joseph McCarthy?  That would make a lot of sense considering the connection to Trump.  But does calling all your enemies communist really redefine communism itself?  Embracing ignorance like that makes me uncomfortable - especially on something that was started by Nazi sympathizers.  So I hope it's not McCarthy.