The CFL and their Initiatives

Not vague at all.

Communism is an umbrella term under which Marxism falls. Its more extreme than socialism. The CM which Marx wrote called for “revolution” that in his mind would swing the means of production to the working class. Judging by the era in which he wrote, I dont think he was talking about people sitting around the kitchen table drinking tea and having a sing along.

It’s nuanced a bit, Beer Guy. Marx did allow that a transition to socialism could be achieved peacefully and without a violent revolution in countries with stable, democratic institutional structures such as the USA, Netherlands, and the UK, for example (“Critique of the Gotha Program”, 1875).

Sorry but it’s still vague. Just tell me, what distinguishes one from the other? Repeating that one comes under another’s umbrella does not do that. What, in your mind, is the difference between each one??

Not vague at all.

But did allow for violence in the event that people didn’t listen to their demands…

You can try and rationalize it any way you want.

I"m not trying to rationalize anything.

Sure sounds as if you are…

A group that allows for violence as a means to an end. Yay or nay?

No, I was just pointing out that Marx did not call for a violent revolution in all cases. Sure he did for others, and yes, he called for violence as the means to his preferred end.

Now I’ve answered you directly.

Please extend to me the same courtesy.

What is the difference between Marxism, Socialism, and Communism? Don’t talk to me about umbrellas, just tell me what, in your mind, distinguishes one from the other? And, if one is more extreme than another, how is it more extreme?

Which is the problem. The west has fought a 20 year war against a group of people who thought that violence was a means to an end based on their ideology. Now the CFL is glorifying another group who does the same.

The differences between socialism and communism are completely irrelevant as the group described themselves as Marxists. Youve just established marxists do view violence as appropriate in at least some instances. I would say in most instances.

We call that “domestic terrorism” which is using violence as a means to your political end

Oh I didn’t ‘establish’ it, they did that themselves! And I’ve just agreed with you, that’s all.

And the differences between socialism and communism are not irrelevant as it was my direct question to you.

You’ve been unable to answer so I won’t ask again

I think Marxists do view violence as a means to achieve their goals, but Capitalists do too. In the case of BLM, they are responding to the violence perpetrated by police hired by capitalists.

The CFL also glorifies Marxism by having a salary cap. The CFLPA glorifies Marxism by negotiating with the league as one unit.

1 Like

Yes it is. Its a diversion as the group doesn’t call themselves socialists. I hear you are a lawyer though.

And I did answer it. Marxism falls under the communism umbrella which is an ideology that holds the factors of production should be controlled by the workers and violence can be used to achieve that end.

Socialism holds the same views but again is another umbrella term with many different theories pouring into it.

So you are equating the police, who recieve calls to respond to domestic disputes, as equal to someone going and burning down a target over their politics?

1 Like

No, I’m equating the police who murder unarmed black men or who violently remove peaceful protesters/strikers to someone going and burning down a target over their politics. Both sides use violence to achieve their goals, which are related to the distribution of wealth.

Both sides also seek noble goals in noble ways: the police who risk their lives to protect the public and the protesters who demonstrate–sometimes at risk of harm/death to themselves–to wrangle greater equality and rights.

Okay I’ll play along.

Name one of these different theories that pours into socialism but does not pour into marxism or communism.

There’s BS version of socialism ie “Democratic Socialism” or a party like the old CCF.

My issue isnt with them. Its with self described Marxists who are not socialists.

My is with one group, based on political or religious ideologies, using force as a means to achieve their political goals. When someone claims to be a “Marxist” it should be implied this is what they believe based on the works of Karl Marx.

And my issus is with an organization who I’ve given tens of thousands of dollars to over the years being sympathetic to a movement with a root in said ideology

I reject this view of the world as I dont see the entire world through power lenses.

Contrary to the propaganda, its not the police out there starting riots.

And I am also not a neo con so I dont support the invasion of other countries for economic or political gain.

We have laws. You cant assault somebody or you go to jail. So if there’s an issue with an individual cop then go through the proper process. But resorting to violence because of it is extreme. You are comparing apples to oranges

The fact that the CFL has a draft like other professional league is also something that needs to be railed against; I can’t think of a more Marxist idea than a labourer not being able to sell their means of production to any bidder they want. Khmer Rouge here we come!

So a league that pays players based on merit is now marxist. Interesting switch of definitions there.

And taunting someone who contributes to your salary is a bit odd.

1 Like

I dont understand what is going on here

2 Likes