Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "Public vs Private | The Historic Definitions of Socialism & Capitalism" video.

  1.  @TheImperatorKnight   TIK  like mate, come on. Socialists despise the term liberal, it was given to them by unhinged right wingers who want to paint the left as a collective, one monolith of ideology. Democracy and Socialism are still compatible, but you've shown to define anything with state ownership as Socialism. Scientific, as a term, still fits. You're acting like there was some massive Socialist conspiracy to use these words when often socialists don't even want to have the words applied to them. You can just call yourself a Libertarian... Oh wait, the right stole that term and downright admitted to it. By the way, the original libs were still pretty left wing considering that they were much further left than the monarchists at the time I respect your videos on military history, but this just reads as an unhinged rant against your strawman of "socialists"
    8
  2.  @TheImperatorKnight  Yeah, this is the problem. In order to even come somewhat close to rationalizing your choice of terms or language, you either have to horribly misdefine everything, or define it to be so broad that the word itself has no meaning. If a hierarchy is always a public, and public control is always socialism, then socialism is just a form of hierarchy. The problem with this is that you've just destroyed the term, and reformed it in your image. The problem then with that is that if this is how you describe socialism... it isn't what a socialist wants. So now you're taking about two different systems, but relating them under a common name. That would be like me calling any kind of fruit an "apple" and a person just talking about a normal apple, and you assuming that the two must be interchangeable because you use the same term. The way you describe socialism and the way they do are fundamentally incompatible, or at the very least highly misleading, so now one of you has to come up with a new term to describe the ideas they Actually are talking about. This logic is so flawed, making up a new definition for a name and then trying to use it to compare fundamentally different ideologies is where you will always run into problems. What you are doing now is again, fundamentally incorrect. For one thing, not everything that isn't your perfect capitalism is socialism. Again, what you're showing me here is that you don't care about what the terms actually mean, you're applying them to everything you personally don't like within a semi-consistent framework. A dictatorship can be capitalist. A state can be capitalist. (even though, as I explained to you, that is not what the term "state capitalism" is referencing.) When you take a socialists critique of capitalism, and pretend that socialism is actually to blame, you destroy the meaning of the term socialism. It's like a child who points at every inequality in the world and shouts racism. Imagine if we decided to re-define racism as all of those systems? How useless would the term be? Socialism is not power. Socialism is not hierarchy. What you are criticizing socialism for are things that most socialists do not want. So as I keep saying, to use this term in this way is useless, and socialists will simply adopt another to explain their actual beliefs. To literally say that a corporation, yes a corporation is a form of socialism... well it explains a lot about you. No matter how much you call socialism everything bad in the world, the actual meaning behind the word will not vanish, it will simply change appearance. Capitalism is not just "an individual on their own, without the hierarchy." That is not an economic system nor an ideology, though judging from what I have seen from you, you are probalby under the imperssion that capitalism is simply the natural state of being, right? In fact, i'd say the closest economic theory to your assertion would be anarchism, but that cannot be true, as anarchism is incomparable with capitalism. After all, "even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines." as according to milton friedman. According to your definition, literally everything bad in the world is socialist, and literally everything good is capitalist. Therefore, it seems that critiquing business... has become a capitalist action. A whole bunch of socialists will sure be surprised to learn that, huh? Oh, and apparently a whole bunch of trump voters are socialists. I'm sure they'll be happy to know that as well. Well, i'm off to spread the news then! I mean seriously dude, you know that the line "socialism is when the government does stuff" is a joke, right? You using in that way strips away all of the meaning, and the system you are talking about is no longer socialism, bud. You've taken your utopia, labeled it capitalism, and everything outside of that tiny bubble is socialism. Yeah, no. Sorry, just... no. As an edit, looking back on some of your other works I notice that you try to dissuade the association fallacy that comes with definition and applying socialism as you do, but it isn't working. There are people in your comments, people it seems that your fan base or even you agree with, that will go on to say things like that bernie sanders is comparable to the nazis. I understand that you probably heavily disagree, and certainly don't call for that comparison in any form, but the fact is that using the term "socialism" to describe all of these this will inherently lead to people thinking these are ideas that can be compared with what socialist and self proclaimed socialists actually... want. Which, in most cases, they aren't. I know you also distinguished between the political and historical debate between why a country is or is not socialist, and i'd like to ask something - why is tit so objective that these countries were historically socialist? Is it because they called themselves that, advocated for ideas they often didn't put into practice, what? Or is it the definition you use this time leading you to that? similarly, do you think we should use another word either for contemporary socialist ideas (which you say might work in the future) and the past actual policies of what you call historical socialist regimes? Is there a word for contemporary theory that differentiates that kind of socialist from the socialists of history? or do you think that isn't necessary? In that case, I would disagree, because it seems many are happy to use those terms with glee interchangeably and seem all too ready to call all modern democratic socialists, or really anyone, a nazi. In any case, thanks for your time, and hopefully an answer. Just as a sidenote, i'm not a socialsit myself, but I know that public perception and association hurts people who do have those beleifs, even if they are incredibly watered down and they;re just trying to refomr the problems out of our current system. That's kind of why I care about the issue, not because it effects me (because no one will be calling me a nazi anytime soon, hopefully) but because I can already see the tangible impact this is having on some people. Again, not trying to insinuate you are to blame for that or are at even ok with that behavior, I just wanted to let you know i'm not doing this because i'm some butthurt socialist, i'm asking this specifically and debating this issue because i've seen the impact of similar cases, and if there is another way to describe it that you think might work, i'd love to know. Anyway, thanks again.)
    8
  3. State capitalism is absolutely a real term, just because you disagree with the terms being used does not mean they cease to exist.
    7
  4.  @TheImperatorKnight  uh, no. No Socialist wants to he called a liberal, and we know the problems you have with defining Socialism
    6
  5.  @ludwigvanel9192  and that is hilariously wrong, on so many levels, but it doesn't surprise me that you probably belive every word. First off, there is no such thing as a definition "in practice." Either it fits the definition that has already been established, it it doesn't. If it doesn't, like I'm the cases you mention, then it isn't Socialism. You don't even have proof they defin it that's way, so your entire point is moot, that is not how Socialism is defined. Furthermore, every socialist politician has defined Socialism that way? Really? Now that's a bold claim. One I would expect some citation for. Because I specifically remember a large amount of libertarian socialists, democratic socialists, and hell just socialists in general not at all advocating for that. I would call MLK a bit of a politician, did he want the state to have total control over people? No. The problem you're running into is your own confirmation bias. You want to define Socialism incorrectly, so you make up some nonsense about performative definitions, and then assert it to be true, without a shred of evidence. The science (observation-based) definition of Socialism is not power to the state over the people, it's a system in which the people, as a whole, own the means of production. You don't even bother to substantiate this point, you just say "but it's true" and move on. None of the figured you mentioned, Hitler included, just wanted state control over their people. At this point, you're just making things up to fit an agenda. They all had complex beliefs and moral lenses that they used it justify their ideology, far beyond "state good." Hell, I don't even know why you're bringing up Hitler, he never even said he wanted Socialism according to the actual definitions, or even your definition, he said he wanted a state where the private corporation and the state were one, both protecting the other. The problem with your "point" is that in order to subscribe to it you have to assume the beliefs of a few people, claim they are representative of an entire ideology, and then retroactively apply that label that you just made up to justify those actions. It makes no sense. Also, I find it funny how you link a communally owned system under Capitalism, for three reasons. One, you just admitted Socialism isn't just state ownership, but collective ownership. Well done. Two, TIK still calls the example of "free market Capitalism" you gave Socialist. And finally, you literally just proved yourself wrong. Those types of buisness are incredibly hard to structure under Capitalism and prone to failures. That means that even if you do set up a company that operates as a collective, the outside market forces would likely cause it to collapse. So you're either left with a single example of a fair system for workers in a sea of exploitation,.or you're left with not even that. You don't see the problem here? Its of no surprise to me that you're anti democracy, the strongest anti socialists tend to be (cough cough Carl Schmitt/Julius Evola cough cough) but let me clue you in. Saying you don't like something, hell, saying you think said thing won't work and it's a pie in the sky fantasy, doesn't change the definition. That's the very point of definitions. You guys seem not to realize it, but you can in fact disagree with a political ideology x think implementation of that ideology is highly flawed and will never happen, and then take the time to actually understand and correctly define said ideology. Do that, if for no other purpose, than to strengthen your arguments. If you walked into a meeting of socialists and just said "state control of everything with no worker control is bad" they'd probably agree, and maybe even assume you were a libertarian socialist. I mean mate I'm not even a Socialist, not a communist, and I'm actually trying to adhere to their w tual goals instead of malicious strawmen. Your childish statement "everyone thinks of #1 first" is equally as silly. No, many people truly don't, but that's besides the point. What part of this goes against Socialism? It's easy enough to show people that they are, in deed, in control over their own lives in such a system. Hell, the entire point is giving the workers more control over their lives, stretching their equal influence from the voting booth all the way to their workplaces. Id say that falls well in line with ideas of self preservation/benefit. Similarly, the examples you give (like all the other arguments you seem to have against Socialism) literally predicate a Capitalist system. What does it matter if you wake up late? You are not the owner of the restaurant, and when you eventually get back to said democratic work place, your co workers will probably have a lot to say about that. And finally, "imposing your will onto others?" That's about as Capitalist as it gets. What else is a boss? A CEO? A landlord? They spend their entire time with you imposing their will upon you. And it looks like socialists want to stop that ability fo your "owners," in the workplace or at your house, to control you so fundementally. After all, if you don't like that boss, it's out on the street with you. And the. You have to find another boss, that will likely continue the same cycle. The reason you "have to keep explaining it" is simply because, despite your ego, your unsubstantiated ramblings don't count as fact. When you say "Socialism is state ownership" and only "prove" this by saying "well socialists define it that way," with no proof, you are not pointing out an objective fact. You are voicing a shallow and easily disproven opinion. Seriously, I can't get over this last line. It shows such a blatant bias and lack of care from your end. You don't prove, you assert. You don't argue, you say "I'm right." You don't provide facts, just strawmen and broad generalizations. If you can really provide me the arguement you just did and call it "objective" in any sense, I can see why you agree with tik. Because you care more about saying "Socialism doesn't work" and "Socialism bad" than actually looking at history as we know it, and trying to properly apply labeled based on existing political ideologies. Its painfully obvious, as I've pointed out, that in this argument you follow your bias to your conclusions, not the facts. And so I'll leave off with this. You are not right. Not objectively, not even subjectively. You are, in fact, wrong. The fact that you have to redefine words (and can't even make a good arguement as to why you're doing it) proves as much. The reason you find it so difficult to keep throwing your biased and false version of history at other people, over and over again, is that it's just wrong, and so easily disproven I have to wonder why you still cling to it. Saying "Socialism doesn't work and everything bad is Socialism" is not an argument, in the slightest. If you have an actual historical point to make, one that uses the correct definition of Socialism and not your brand new made up one, then please, give it. But if not, every new response you give that seeks to rewrite history and redefine words only strengthens my argument. I don't know why, after all this time, it's so hard for you to grasp that the Nazis objectively were not Socialists. I keep proving this to you all, over and over again, but you just keep worming away from my pints, and even your previous points, to make more fallacy-filled assertions. Can't wait for the next batch of easily disproven nonsense from you, mate. And pro tip - when talking about history, maybe don't admit you could not care less about actual history in the first paragraph, hm?
    5
  6.  @TheImperatorKnight  That's possibly one of the more... out there comparisons I have heard. Saying a word has particular meaning, even if you do not like the parts that do not go into the word, is utter nonsense. Would you prefer I use terms like state dirigisme, which describe essentially the same system? The fact is, even if you don't like terminology, that doesn't mean the distinction that the terminology provides is irrelevant. I'm completely colorblind (not in the racial sense, the actual condition) and I still like to now what the color is of objects, even though personally the distinction is of no value. Similarly to bring up a historical term, Malcolm X called slaves that supported their masters, even to the detriment of other slaves "House Negroes." I personally disagree with using this terminology in the present day for a variety of reasons, mainly that there are alternatives, but even then the concept of a "House Negro" and a "Field Nergo" do not vanish. Those people still existed, using that term or not. So again, the terminology can be flawed, that's fair, but outright saying the condition it describes does not exist, or worse yet that it can be lumped in under another system ignores the very meaning the word is pointing towards. I can see how seeing the term "capitalist" associated with a thing that is not the traditionally associated with it would be a bit annoying to correct, as it draws association that doesn't reflect on all (or even most) capitalist practices, but I would still argue that it is a useful term, and that as it has been used in history we should at the very least find some way to convey how the old terminology has been better refined to support the same ideas, but that the system behind those words still exists.
    5
  7.  @TheImperatorKnight  So the problem you have with the word is, as I previously stated, not with the system as it exists but within the terms that are used to describe it, the etymology that makes up the word that you are addressing, not the system. As I said previously, the system will continue to exist whether or not you call it "state capitalism." "state dirigisme," or "just that dictatorship-type economy." And I would disagree with your framing here, a state can absolutely be capitalist, after all a state is just a collection of individuals with commonly accepted authority. Take away the consent to be governed, and the state is just another grouping of wealthy people. A state can absolutely be capitalist, work in the interests of capitalists, or work not at all yet still exist. Similarly, the term "state capitalist" does not describe a system of a literal capitalist state, it is a shorthand term used to describe another type of system completely. State capitalism does exist, even if you want to reference it by what you assume is preferential etymology.
    5
  8.  @TheImperatorKnight  "I used to be a Socialist. As I said in the Hitler's Socialism video, when I realized Hitler was a Socialist, I immediately grasped the true nature of Socialism." So rather than actually take definitions into account, you decided to work backwards and create your false definitions of actual political ideologies not based off of what their proponents think, or what the famous thinkers in their history have said, but from what you want them to be. You still haven't "realized" hitler was a socialist, because it's impossible to "realize" something that isn't true. You figured out that hitler was bad, a problem many in your comment section have yet to address, and then made the stunning leap in logic that everything that defines power is somehow socialist. In other news - your definition of socialism is useless, and now learning that you define it so broadly, I can see why you think hitler fit at all, and I can confidently say that he does not, because if this is how far you need to stretch the truth to come to that conclusion than it must not have been true to begin with. "A typical Socialist wants what I want - a better world, a better economy, and a better life for the poor and downtrodden. I still want these things. " I thought you said marxian socialists weren't the only type, in order to justify hitler supposedly being a non-marxist socialist? Well, just another self-contradiction and over generalization to add to the mix, marvelous. However, all of these words now hold no weight. Because I know when you say socialism here, you actually mean hierarchy. Hierarchy impoverishes people. Hierarchy destroys the economy. Hierarchy makes the world a terrible place to live. Of course, that ignores that hierarchy is inherent to capitalism, but whatever we'll just sweep that under the rug. And the problem is, as I said earlier, you didn't actually define socialism as it's been presented, or proposed, or spoken about - you found all of the things you blamed for a bad world, and you blamed socialism. Better off, you blamed socialists, who advocate for next to none of this. Tell me, which socialists want to give corporations more power? "Marx wasn't even describing Capitalism when he referred to it. What he was describing was Merchantalism, which was actually a precursor to Socialism." Oh. Oh you poor, poor child. Yeah, just no. Mercantilism, as well as early imperialism and colonialism, were precursors to capitalism. This is objective history. You can argue that the systems were not one and the same, and that's an argue worth happening, but to deny that the triangle trade of mercantilism at all impacted the creation of capitalism is sorely incorrect, and better yet to blame it on socialism despite the fact that marx was actively speaking out about it says even more. You truly do believe everything bad in the world can be attributed to one ideology, don't you? You have your nice little whataboutism here, "well yeah i've been redefining terms, but marx talked about capitalism in a way I don't like a century and a half ago, so it's justified." So tell me, what makes his definition less valuable than yours? I don't even like marx, yet i'm more inclined to believe him on the simple account that he actually says that his opposing side has upsides and downsides, a feat you seem to not be able to manage. "What I've done is gone back to square one (to pre-history, then to the present) and shown exactly what the terms means and why they mean that." So you haven't defined them according to history at all, you've painted over history to make room for re-defining them. thanks for at least being honest about it. "As I've shown in the video, when a society decides to organise itself politically, it becomes a State (defined both historically and by the dictionary)." So any collection of people with common goals and political power is a state. Well then I guess as you said earlier, corporations are statist entities, and we've been living under a full socialist control for decades now, as these collections of people with political power control the economy. So, in other words, everything is socialism the second there is more than two people in a room. Sounds amazing, really. I would think most socialists wouldn't realize this is what they are advocating for, as it objectively isn't, but whatever then. At least in this part you've managed to actually attempt to define socialism somewhat, although rather broadly. Makes me wonder why you can't even stick with one definition. Which is it? Is it just hierarchy? Is it state control of the economy? Are those two things really synonymous to you? "Socialists mistakenly believe that they're NOT calling for State control of the means of production (totalitarianism)." "Socialists mistakenly believe that they are actually calling for what they're actually calling for, which can be no state control of the economy, or it can be public control of the economy through democratic means. I, however, have decided that despite the fact that my definition of socialism is so broad it's literally happening worldwide right now, this is impossible, and thus we should utterly ignore what they actually want and project what we don't like onto them." Right, makes perfect sense, well done! "A Socialist may disagree, or dismiss, or say 'this time will be different'. You may say you don't agree with my definitions, and claim that I've reinventing them. But you're not deceiving me - you're only deceiving yourself." What a stellar argument. A socialist might actually try to engage me in debate on consistent political terms, something you seem unable to do. And i'll tell you, i'd prefer that to this "debate" any day. Because they can at least keep a consistent definition which actually acknowledges the upsides of the opposition, not changing the definitions whenever you find something bad you can put under the label. "This lesson of history is not being learned, and so we're doomed to repeat it again and again." Gosh the irony. Ok then, well let me know how railing against everything bad being socialism works out when the companies gain more power, which you call socialist. r we get another Pinochet, or start another war of containment. Because none of those things are bad and were caused by fearmongering on socialism, right? Oh wait, you probably think they were all socialists, who am I kidding.
    5
  9.  @TheImperatorKnight  There really isn't any irony to it, it's a blatantly false statement meant to somewhat strawman the arguments of the right of comedic effect through absurdity. Apparently you didn't catch on to that bit. Do you also think socialism is putting black people in video games? Or that cultural marxism is a thing?
    5
  10.  @TheImperatorKnight   TIK  liberals never embraced Socialism, the ideologies are blatantly contradictory. They didn't move from right to left, rather the label changed and shifted. Socialists still have no desire to be referred to as liberals, and the side that confuses the labels the most is generally conservatives who want to conflate leftist and liberals, and the libs that fall victim to that rhetoric. I'll certainly look into the source that you provided, but are you actually implying that modern conservatives lie on the left? I might just be hampered by an American perspective but American conservatives lie nowhere on the left. I think the confusion comes from the fact that the labeled explaining the ideologies changed, not the ideologies themselves. For example, Libertarian originally meant one who believed in free will, soon after changed to a term for left wing anarchists, and in the early 1900s began to gain relevance primarily in America as a description of free market Capitalist philosphy. Those people didn't change, the names did.
    4
  11.  @ludwigvanel9192  that's the issue, precisely. That isn't the definition of Socialism, and isn't what socialists want. They want worker control of the means of production. Yes, that can be done by the state, but if said state does not represent the worker (as in, representative or democratic) then it isn't Socialism. Hell, the first socialists didn't even want a state. That's the problem, Hitler didn't even do anything close to that, but since some people want to call him a Socialist, they define Socialism as just state control. I don't mean to be attacking you specifically here, it's a common myth, but it is something that kind of proves that the only way to call Hitler a Socialist... Is to redefine Socialism. Again, unless you're doing this intentionally I don't mean to be blaming you, it's just a but annyoing to explain to different people, constantly.
    4
  12.  @AverageAlien  Dude are these the super "socialist destroying" argument you were bragging about? Wow. I feel so owned.
    4
  13.  @TheImperatorKnight  I have to wonder in all of this what you consider my political viewpoints to be. Of course, it doesn't much matter to the conversation, but i'm no socialist. And yet i'll get lumped in with them all the same, won't I?
    4
  14.  @TheImperatorKnight  so in other words, Capitalism is always good and all of your problems are due to those pesky socialists who have no logic behind their ideas.
    3
  15.  @ludwigvanel9192  Sure,this video alone does not doe that. But it proves that in order to even call hitler a socialist,you need to redefine the term. Which most likely means he would not
    3
  16.  @nukclear2741  So, in other words, what I've been doing the whole time? It's ok dude, we know you're just pissed because I keep winning.
    3
  17.  @ianjedi1282  yeah, and it really isn't. Thank you for correcting him, tho
    2
  18.  @postie48  Part 2 Mixed economies are, by definition, capitalist. The state may participate in the economy (most often to bolster it) and may set up its own systems to help or hurt the citizenry, but the economy is still without a doubt capitalists. Social democrats are still not socialists, which is, again, why they keep reminding people that their mixed economic system that is often praised by socialists is, in fact, capitalists. No, child, parts can't be both at the same time, if it is part of a private economy or in service to one, such as the policies you mention, it is capitalist. Health Services in a capitalist economy... are capitalist. None of these people are "fully socialist," or working in "socialist organizations," what you mean is that they're working in state-run organizations that exist for the benefit of a capitalist economy. But then again, you don't even care about your own definition of socialism, so why should I bother pointing out how liberally you flaunt the actual one? So, deflection. When I bring up how the neo-nazis, fascists, ethnonationalists ect of today proudly march with the right, as they always have, your response is "but some called themselves socialists!" which isn't even true. No, child, most of them did not consider themselves socialists, Mussolini for example often wrote about his rejection of socialism and made clear his right-wing foundation of ideology, American fascists openly rejected socialism, liberalism, and the left in their alliances with capitalist industry and the old conservative guard, British fascists supported a deeply private system and accused arguments in favor of socialism of being part of the antisemetic conspiracy they supported, and fascist spain, again, openly rejected socialism and proudly declared its ideological war on socialists. In fact, really only one group (and its spin offs) labelled themselves as socialists, the nazis, and that was after hitler had opposed the inclusion of the word, privately stated his opposition to its usage to describe his ideology, and later purged those that included the word after they began to leave the party in huge numbers due to his anti-socialist policy and his attempted to redefine the term socialism to simply mean nationalism. So, no, fascists didn't call themselves socialists, it wasn't even "in the name." The reason your assertion isn't acceptable to those you call "revisionists" (likely historians) is because your assertion isn't true. The definition of socialism largely hasn't changed except in the rhetoric of conservatives that oppose it. You're trying to claim that all definitions change to get out of the fact that no definitions support your assertion, historical or otherwise. Also, Marx and Engels didn't advocate for government intervention but a stateless socially owned society, but that's a bit beyond you, isn't it. Just stop lying. The fascists didn't claim to be socialist, openly rejected socialism, and did not fit the definition of socialism in any way. They praised private property, rejected state ownership/control/administration of the means of production and distribution in the strongest possible terms, and advocated for competition, private property, profit. Socialism is not defined as state ownership, control, or administration, but rather, social ownership. So, no, by the definitions of the time and current accepted definitions, they were not socialist, but far right conservative. They were thugs and murders that murdered people along conservative lines for right wing goals, but hey, here you are trying to defend them and minimize their crimes. So live with the fact that you've been proven wrong, and that no matter how complex and multi-faceted history is, it still has no place for revisionism.
    2
  19.  @TheImperatorKnight  oh, now that's ironic
    2
  20. he was not a socialist
    2
  21.  @ludwigvanel9192  Yes, I have, unfortunately.
    2
  22.  @ludwigvanel9192  it doesn't actually prove hitler was a socialist, quite the opposite.
    2
  23.  @SCHMALLZZZ  Socialism is not just defined as that transitional period. Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production and operate them directly. Germany couldn't care less about that and didn't want the workers to have any control at all. "National Socialism" had nothing to do with actual Socialism. The USSR wasn't even that international, not until after the war, and the Nazis were huge expansionists. Your "logic" doesn't actually hold up to any scrutiny. Maybe actually read what I post next time because I already addressed and disproved all this nonsense.
    2
  24.  @AverageAlien  So you've been an expert in presenting "Socialist arguments" then?
    2
  25.  @AverageAlien  Oh, now you're just making this easy for me, Child, thank you for proving my point, and thank you for admitting I was always right.
    2
  26.  @luxiusilluminus2844  Oh you did try - and sadly for you, reality came up and cut that off before it got too embarrassing for you to continue with. You just genuinely couldn't understand that others might be educated on these subjects... and still disagree with you. Unfortunately, people like you just can't respond to logic, reason, or factual history, hence your lack of rebuttal. I'm sorry I attempted to educate you, from your lack of response it seems it was a futile attempt.
    2
  27.  @luxiusilluminus2844  well, that’s certainly one way to put it. But sure, you go your way i’ll go mine. Maybe one of these days i’ll figure out that elaborate, long responses aren’t worth the trouble. Or maybe it’s even attempting to care about internet arguments that’s the problem. Well, whatever, wish you the best and all, good luck in your voyages and i’ll see you behind the sunset, you know the drill.
    2
  28.  @SnacksLP  You're putting this into you own framing again, a framing in never accepted and am not working within. There is no A, B, or C. The only answer was that the democratic partty was the right wing, generally and through action conservative party of the time, and that's that. I don't care how you twist that, or how you try to write it off, that's what i've been saying. If you can't argue against the actual facts i'm handing you, then just don't bother responding.
    2
  29.  @smurfatron1515  yeah he has. It isn't the pretties, but thanks.
    2
  30.  @SCHMALLZZZ  pretty easily, in fact. You just have the state work with and invest within those private individuals to create an economy where the state acts as a Capitalist, and it and the market are one and the same. That's state capitalism, where the state and the market work together and equally supplement eachother as one entity. Pretty simple stuff really, you should know this. Also, they don't own the means of production, but ok mate.
    2
  31.  @TheImperatorKnight  you mean Capitalism, right?
    1
  32.  @TheImperatorKnight  so Capitalism is always communism. This is why your definition doesn't work, because it ignores all proper context and puts your feelings above facts
    1
  33.  @TheImperatorKnight  so everything is Socialism and nothing is Capitalism
    1
  34.  @andreaskarlsson83  that literally is not Socialism, in the slightest
    1
  35.  @andreaskarlsson83  it literally wasn't, you're making things up mow
    1
  36. Yes, trumpites are very anti-socialist, much like the nazis and the fascists. No, the state did not control the tools of production, and no, that is not how socialism is defined. The nazi state was not socialist.
    1
  37.  @postie48  And I would suggest thinking deeper about the definition you give, and the inaccuracies it portrays. In any case, from Oxford Languages: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." And here's why that's more accurate: If one simply defines socialism as "state control and ownership," then you must recognize that socialism is an ideology as old as the human race. Long before Marx, or even his own teachers, ancient monarchs and empires promoted state ownership of property, of humans even, justified with religion or force. That was, in fact, the trend, up until the Enlightenment Era, and socialism/capitalism actually formed as ideological labels. Unless you'd like to argue that socialism is as old as our human history, that doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, if state control is socialism, are things like state owned parks and housing definitionally socialist, despite being advocated for by the father of capitalism, Adam Smith? Are things like state-owned development corporations socialist, despite primarily existing to strengthen private industry and capitalist economies? Is the military, the police, the firefighting brigade, the public library system, necessarily socialist? If you go as far as you do, and decide that not just ownership, but control defines socialism, are all economies then socialist, since all states have a degree of control over the economy, even if said control is just to enforce law relating to theft and defense of private property? No, socialism is distinct in history, and distinct from our modern economic system, because it advocates for collective control, not state control. Said collective can be represented by the state, but obviously not all states represent the collective. This is in line with socialists from Marx to Fourier to Proudhon and further, and makes socialism definitionally distinct from other economic systems. Any other definition either ignores the historical desires and commonalities of socialists, or lumps them in with centuries-old groups that socialism was founded to oppose. In any case, even if one was to accept your definition, the nazi state would still not fit it. Obviously for the reason that the definition specifies ownership and control, not just potential, future control, but for other reasons. The nazis did not advocate for governmental ownership, nor did they enact it. While they did create close alliances with private industry to further party interests, these were largely "enforced" through voluntary guaranteed-profit contracts, that private industry competed over. They also didn't abolish private property, they abolished a right to unimpeded private property, but again this relates back to the difference between potential future control, and actual ownership. If a law is signed into action that allows something, that does not mean that thing will happen. Furthermore, if a law is signed into action that removes a guarantee to something, that does not mean that thing stops happening. We americans have no government-recognized right to healthcare, and yet individuals still get healthcare. The nazi state did not acknowledge a right to unimpeded private property, but they still didn't actually impede on private property much at all, excluding temporary wartime industry regulation, which was likely the point of that abolished right in the first place. In any case, there is a clear difference between actual ownership/control and potential future control. Similarly, ownership was not being "shifted to members of the nazi party," so much as owners were becoming nazi party members for personal profit. Following an ideology or belonging to an organization does not make you part of a state, even if said state is working towards the goal of said organization/ideology. Hence, why republican private owners are still private owners, even with a republican president, and even if said republican president passes laws specifically to give them more control or profit. In any case, no, in either definition of socialism, the nazi party does not fit it. I mean, you can see this with modern neo-nazi and fascist groups, proudly marching with the right. At some point, you have to realize how fundamentally different nazis and socialists are, and even if you attempt to define words broadly enough so that they fit in the same category, there are still so many fundamental differences in their ideology that one cannot hope to act as though they are one core group, with one core motivation. Nazis aren't socialists, and doing anything but accepting that just leads to the emboldening of nazi groups.
    1
  38.  @postie48  But they weren't socialists, they didn't believe in state or government ownership, that isn't how socialism is defined, and they didn't claim to be socialists. They weren't socialists, it's a simple fact.
    1
  39.  @postie48  You're just making assertions without backing, so I can assume you've conceded, given that you're unable to properly argue against or disprove the evidence I have provided. You're unable to back up your definiton of socialism, or respond to criticisms of it, so you just keep saying "state control is socialism" without proof, and doubling down on your disproven points and ridiculous assertions.
    1
  40.  @postie48  Part 1 Please stop blaming your economic illiteracy on me. Anecdotes aren't evidence, and you still have yet to actually respond to my argument. But... I did quote the full definition? If I hadn't, you would have posted the "full definition" to prove me wrong. However, you didn't, so I can only assume that you're just holding on to anything that you think can help your argument. I quoted a historically accurate definition of socialism, and pointed out that your definition made no sense, but you had to dismiss that out of hand to make your arguments, so you did. Funny how you mention "different people," and yet are unable to actually cite your claims. Sure, different people defined socialism different ways. Conservatives define it as state ownership, despite the numerous flaws with that, that i've pointed out to you and you've failed to address. Historians, socialists, scholars of economics, and so on all refer to socialism in the terms I have, with that historically accurate definition, something you can still not address or rebut. I'm not "rejecting anything that doesn't support my view," i'm pointing out that one narrative, yours, is spread ideologically and makes no sense, while another narrative is in line with historical fact. The nazi state did not include or desire state ownership/control, nor is this how socialism is defined. I suggest you actually read your sources instead of taking TIK's word for it, because even TIK must admit that The Vampire Economy comes to the conclusion that the nazis were not socialists. And see, here you are again, seeking to definitionally expand the term socialism without historical basis. That's why you think there's some "wide variation," because you're including non-socialist systems. Plato's Republic, for example, provided inspiration for socialists but itself did not describe a socialist economy, but one which simply substituted private owners for philosophers. Early christians advocated against greed and often shared the products of their labor, but didn't actively advocate for social ownership, and still retained private systems. Do you see that pint yet? These systems weren't just "different" from later socialists, they were different from the ideological core of socialism, though they provided inspiration for socialists to later form their own systems. And what was that inspiration? Social, not government, ownership. Social democrats aren't socialists either, social democratic countries have explained time and time again that they aren't socialist, but a mixed market economy. This is why your definition of socialism is so vague, because you're trying to include huge amounts of disparate political views. I would suggest you stop assuming, then. Adam Smith is widely known as the father of capitalism because he was one of the first to analyze this emerging economic system, and the first to write down the rules of its functioning and ideal policy/ideological positions that would strengthen this market. Depends how you define "a long time," both are explicitly the product of the Enlightenment Era and the Industrial Revolution, and cannot be said to have existed in any meaningful or complete form before those. The Age of Enlightenment was, by definition, characterized by a trend away from the dominant ideology of state ownership and total subjugation to the state at the time. This isn't "nonsense," it's a simple fact. Sure, it wasn't the same everywhere, and state ownership had in many places been questions or scaled back, but this was literally what kick started the Enlightenment era, it wasn't a separate historical event. I'm not sure how you can claim that the ownership of land was primarily in the hands of individuals as opposed to collectives or the state, given that before said era, the whole of europe was struggling with the existence of absolute monarch after absolute monarch. Again, the enclosure movement and the development of individual production/strengthening of peasant free holding communities were quite literally either the result of early Enlightenment thought, or the precursors that kickstarted the Enlightenment itself. This is also a primary reason for the rise in the mercantile classes, as they were still subordinate to the state until the Enlightenment era was well underway, even if they could keep some wealth. This is all not to mention the fact that the majority of the land was explicitly owned by, or dedicated to, the state, and that these people had no right to resist the monarchies or defend their property, they very thing you're calling "socialist." I hate to break it to you, things don't magically become socialist just because you dislike them. You're literally asserting that organizations made solely for the benefit of private companies and a capitalist economy, are instead socialist, with only your own dislike of capitalist economies and your role in them as evidence. Anecdotes aren't evidence. So no, not socialist in establishment, ownership, or intention, by definition. Similarly, US state parks, or really any state parks, public parks, or nature reserves, aren't socialist, because they have nothing to do with the means of production being owned socially, in fact, they have nothing to do with the means of production at all. You're even rejecting your own definition now. They are, by definition, not socialist, as we've been over, socialism is not defined as something being owned/run by the state. Again, remember, socialism isn't defined in "public vs private," but in social ownership's relation to both of these things. Social housing, state parks, public libraries, public transpiration, hell, the military, none of these things are socialist, and these things have been advocated for by capitalists, hell, capitalist economists/philosophers as well, for literal centuries. The problem is that your view of history is so warped that you genuinely believe that huge swathes of capitalists are actually advocating for socialism, and thus your definition of socialism must be so vague that it includes everyone from libertarians to social democrats. The fact that you're genuinely suggesting that some of the most popular capitalist policies, proposed by staunch capitalists, that either bolster or do nothing to a capitalist economy, are somehow socialist, is baffling. No, none of these systems are socialistic in intention, and you seem unable to articulate even why you think otherwise. You think the definition of socialism is "limited" because it doesn't include capitalist policy. Sorry you don't like the proven and cite definition.
    1
  41.  @postie48  And yet i've given you both. Your response, of course, being to ignore evidence that you dislike, and carry on with your supported revisionist garbage. You can run away all you want, but you can't change the fact that you were proven wrong, proven a fool, and that you can't even back your own assertions up. You gave anecdote, assertion, insult. I gave facts.
    1
  42.  @edcarson3113  What a stunning rebuttal. Truly, I am intellectually "owned."
    1
  43.  Karl Quetzacoatl  ok, Capitalism is collectivist
    1
  44.  @bobhabib7662  So you don't understand basic economics. It's ok, most people don't, but perhaps you should consider your ignorance on a topic before attempting to create a silly strawman that showcases your ignorance.
    1
  45.  @Nyet-Zdyes  Nah, sorry, conservatism is essentially about enforcing moral norms. Sorry? And you really just don't get it. You attempt to answer a simple question, and in doing so, showcase your ignorance. "where do you get this idea that Liberty is the domain of the right?" It isn't. Your problem is that you're cherry-picking ideologies to support your point, while ignoring others. For example, you're ignoring that libertarian socialism, communism, and anarchism are all beliefs of the left, and yet are not "statist" or totalitarian in any way. You're ignoring as well the long history of authoritarian right wing and conservative movements, I mean hell, the right was originally founded as a term to describe absolute monarchs. So clearly, though the left and right are opposites, that difference does not lie in one between "liberty" and "collectivism." Hence, anarchism being left wing. None of the right are anarchists, because anarchism, by definition, is a movement and ideology of the left. By that very fact, your attempt to say that the right is the side of liberty i debunked. In reality, what separates the two is adherence to/rejection of hierarchy.
    1
  46.  @bobhabib7662  lmao, kid, the taliban are conservatives. you really do just call anyone a socialist, don't you?
    1
  47.  @bobhabib7662  Conservatism, in theory, in execution, in history, is defined by the enforcement of moral norms, usually centering around tradition, no matter how accurate the understanding of said tradition is. This is why, despite claiming to be a party of liberty, it is the right, not the left, that pushes for a huge military with fingers in every country, a militarized police force and strict adherence to the law no matter how unjust, strict policy that criminalizes drug use no matter how harmless, moral policy related to healthcare, minorities, marriage, holidays, and so on. The majority of the conservative platform is "justified" by their own collectivist religious views, views that they don't just want to spread, but to enforce. Considering how much conservatives rely on the government to stop things like petty crime, drug use, and abortion, no, conservatism absolutely isn't about less reliance on the government, it's about a government that reflects their morality. At the end of the day, it's never been "about individualism," given that conservatives advocate for a total adherence to the morality of the state, an most often, the god they claim chooses its leaders. This is why libertarians and conservatives have little overlap besides their social views, and why, for example after the 2020 elections, conservatives have to admit that they are libertarians don't have much in common at all. Many of the policies that you consider moral, that your opposition is flaunting, are the very policies that conservatives oppose. Since you apparently missed reality, need I remind you of the huge increase in islamaphobic and antisemetic terrorist attacks under trump? Need I remind you of the ever-increasing death toll of right wing domestic terrorism, most often conducted by white, christian men, who feel that their actions are justified by their ideology and faith? Need I remind you of every attack committed against birth control and abortion providers, both by individuals and at the political level? Need I remind you of conservatives literally praising the Taliban? I could go on, but your denial of this is shameful. Yes, child, conservatism deals largely with forcing moral systems onto people that want nothing to do with them, often by violence. It's telling that you support this, but when you see very similar authoritarian religious conservatism in other groups, like the taliban, you proclaim them to be socialist.
    1
  48.  @bobhabib7662  "everyone I disagree with is a socialist!"
    1
  49.  @bobhabib7662  It's amazing. Just because I can easily prove you wrong, you've somehow decided i'm now a socialist. Yes, it's you that doesn't get basic economics, as we've been over. Not too hard to get. I mean, I go ahead and say that you call everyone who disagrees with you a socialist, and then you just go ahead and prove it. Isn't that funny?
    1
  50.  @bobhabib7662  Child, just because they're different conservatives doesn't make them socialists.
    1
  51.  @bobhabib7662  It's amazing, you're still trying to convince people that conservatives are socialists, just to get over your ignorance of basic economics.
    1
  52.  @bobhabib7662  So you don't know what conservatism or socialism are. That explains... quite a bit.
    1
  53.  @bobhabib7662  Child, you literally can't handle the fact that religious, right wing conservatives are what they say they are, so you have to reinvent them to somehow be socialists. I mean hell, let's look at the literal britannica dictionary definition of the taliban: "Taliban, Pashto Ṭālebān (“Students”), also spelled Taleban, ultraconservative political and religious faction that emerged in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s following the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the collapse of Afghanistan’s communist regime, and the subsequent breakdown in civil order." So, no, in no world are authoritarian conservatives socialists, despite your repeated failed attempts to rewrite history. The taliban are just about as individualist as modern conservatives, which is to say, not at all. They want people to conform to their right wing religious views, and are willing to use political and street violence to achieve those ends, just like modern conservatives. The fact that you see religious conservatives and say that their policies are something the left can't separate from is... odd. Yes, hate to break it to you, most conservative social views are entirely unpopuilar, hence their reliance on strong military and police to enforce said views, and why they despise people trying to cut back on police militarization. These are the freedom loving individualists you're talking about? I'm sorry you're so deeply ignorant that you think conservatism is socialism. Reading a dictionary isn't "revisionist."
    1
  54.  @bobhabib7662  Child, totalitarianism existed for centuries before the first socialist was born, and libertarian/anarchist socialists have a long, storied history. Socialists are socialists, conservatives are conservatives, and the taliban are proudly the latter.
    1
  55.  @bobhabib7662  I mean yes, your ignorance is quite funny, but I think it's not worth laughing at someone that so clearly lacks any sort of comprehension of the subject matter. Merely, i'm just here to educate you. The fact that you think that a state must always exist betrays your authoritarian thinking, and reveals the long known fact that no conservative could ever advocate for a free society, because a free society would never choose to be conservative. Communists are well aware that without a state, anarchism is inevitable, hence the long history of anarchists and communists sharing ideological goals. I'm not sure you realize that a socially owned society isn't one in which said power vacuum exists, but that does seem a bit above your reading level. Child, capitalism has never represented individualism or freedom for the vast majority of the people, rather, it's represented the ability for the few to control, abuse, and steal from the many, be they public or private. Communists, of course, don't want a "non-state state," they just don't want a state, and don't want the collectivist subjugation that comes with capitalism. I hate to break it to you, but its a simple fact that the right are actively, some might even say purposefully, moving us towards a fascistic state of affairs. This is, of course, because outside the imaginations of conservatives, the reality of their movement has never been one which holds big central government in contempt, unless the actions of said government support individualism, public services, or internationalism. The very reason why there's so much pushback against guns is because fascistic right wing street gangs are looking to use them on random people who dare to oppose their totalitarian views. See, conservatives don't care about individual freedoms, they care about their freedoms, and to use said "freedoms" to the fullest extent, they must reject the freedom and individuality of others, as you yourself have done in this very thread.
    1
  56.  @bobhabib7662  Funny how you're prepared with one specific example, it's almost like you know this is a common criticism of the right, and with good reason. No, child, even if you wish to deny them, it is a simple fact that there has been a huge spike in bigoted crimes conducted by the right. Now, given that you're unable to do any honest research into the topic, and instead rely on right wing idealogues to tell you what to think, I thought i'd give you a few good examples, that you were free to look into. Of course, being unable to rebut those examples, you decided to deflect. So, why is that? Why don't you want to deal with the massive amount of hateful, violent crimes conducted by the right? Why do you deny them, doing anything you can to protect the nazis which you proudly call allies? I'm sorry you're incapable of research, and i'm happy to help.
    1
  57.  @bobhabib7662  I did answer your question, you apparently forgot how to read after I responded. I'm not a socialist, nor have I advocated for a socialist economy. It seems, however, that you really do call anyone you dislike a socialist, regardless of their actual views on anything, or your knowledge of said views, which seems to be sorely lacking.
    1
  58.  @bobhabib7662  "libertarians" reject anarchy, as all the right does.
    1
  59.  @bobhabib7662  Modern, capitalist libertarians are further to the right than conservatives, not because they believe the individual should have more freedoms, but because they believe that a small group should be able to steal whichever freedoms they please from people. This is, of course, antithetical to anarchism. I'm simply pointing out the obvious fact that leftism isn't "when the government does stuff," and has a history of libertarian and individual thought that far surpasses the right. So no, they don't only support a bigger government with more central policy, as idiotic as "big government" is to say. The left isn't collectivist as a whole, child. There's nothing individualist about modern conservatism. I'm taking the history of the word libertarian, as a term used historically to describe anarchists and socialists, and pointing out that you don't even know this history. I'm pointing out that the left as a whole does not support "more freedom restricting central government policies," though of course by "freedom restricting," you most likely mean "hatecrime punishing." Child, by definition left and right are not defined by collectivism, or authoritarianism, or their differences on those two. And, by definition, one can care about both an individual and a larger group of individuals. That is, if you can handle more than one thought at once. Can you?
    1
  60.  @bobhabib7662  Child, what? It is the left, not the right, that has supported a world wide military, and more than that, tried to strengthen it. The problem is that you seem to have a fluid understanding of terms, choosing to define words however you please whenever it's convenient. Eisenhower? Nixon? Truman? Johnson? Kennedy? "Leftists?" Do you just call everyone a leftists? No, child, the history of the right is one fraught with warfare, and the history of the left is either in active protest of said war, or being dragged into them by right wing actors. For the entire history of the USA, the right has been either warmongering or apathetic to the warmongering of their peers. In fact, the only break in this, the exception that proves the rule, was WW2. Ironically, our last justified war.
    1
  61.  @bobhabib7662  Minus the fact that the nazis and fascists are proud conservatives much like you.
    1
  62.  @bobhabib7662  So you're a socialist then? By your own definition, you are.
    1
  63.  @bobhabib7662  So, again, you call random people you don't like socialists, either out of malice or ignorance. Which is it? Socialists are socialists, yes. Fascists are proud right wing anti-socialist conservatives, but this is far from the first time you've called conservatives socialists. Marxists can be anyone from capitalist to anarchist, it's a method of historical analysis not an economic prescription. The nazis, as we've been over, are proud right wing anti-socialist conservatives, hence your constant praise of them. Progressive liberals are just that, capitalists with libertarian social views. Social democrats are just that, capitalists with libertarian social views and progressive economic views. And communists, of course, are communists, not socialists. There's nothing difficult to grasp here, it's quite easy to see that you're just wrong, and proudly so, on every level. Of course, socialists don't "favor big government policies influencing overall society," both because said "big government policies" describe everyone from conservatives to technocrats, and because again, socialism historically has huge movements advocating for the complete and immediate abolishing of the state. The problem with your assertion is that self-labelled conservatives constantly vote for pro-government policies, and yet they aren't socialists. You claim they wouldn't support these policies, and yet defend these policies yourself. The goal of conservatism is, and always has been, the enforcement of conservative social and political goals, which of course often are based on whatever said conservative sees as "traditional." You can insult me all you want, but all it takes is a pair of open eyes, and you can see proud conservatives fighting to force the state to enforce their social and religious views. Yes, this absolutely can be totalitarian, which most traditionalists, and modern conservatives, are. I'm aware that you might think this is simple, likely because you're an idiot, and most idiots don't know just how much they don't know. Of course, there is no binary here, you can support strong central government that gives the individual more power, you can support less government and less individual power, and that's not even speaking of the fact that what said government is doing to reach that end is quite literally what defines the ideology you hold. In any case, conservatism is quite literally defined by strong central government policies which ultimately result in the individual losing power. Also, progressive liberals are capitalists, neither totalitarian nor socialist, and thus reside around the center, dipping to the right and left on some issues. The fact that you see this as not only socialist, but totalitarian, says a lot. Hate to break it to you, most capitalists see the government as a solution to certain problems. But I forgot, everyone who isn't you is a socialist, right?
    1
  64.  @bobhabib7662  ...child, you're the only one making personal attacks, forgive me for retaliating in kind occasionally.
    1
  65.  @bobhabib7662  Child, you literally just said "And yes, communists are also socialists." You're making the same mistake you claim this dictionary did. In any case, of course, your criticism is completely unrelated, and proves that you have no counter. I agree, there is nothing about the Taliban that supports individualism, much like modern conservatives. Despite having no evidence of them being socialist, and in fact, having evidence to the contrary, you've now decided that they spread an "authoritarian socialist message?" No, child, they must conform to right wing traditionalist and conservative religious norms, or be killed. Totalitarianism has always existed independently of socialism. I've already rebutted this assertion of yours, and predictably, you had no response. It's no "inconvenient fact," child, it's just not true, and predictably, you have no answer for that. Don't ignore the dictionary, child. It proved you wrong. But let's keep going! Shall I mention the whole host of modern right wing conservatives that praise the Taliban?
    1
  66.  @bobhabib7662  Don't forget! "Taliban, Pashto Ṭālebān (“Students”), also spelled Taleban, ultraconservative political and religious faction that emerged in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s following the withdrawal of Soviet troops, the collapse of Afghanistan’s communist regime, and the subsequent breakdown in civil order... It combined a strict religious ideology—a mixture of Deobandi traditionalism and Wahhābī puritanism—with a conservative Pashtun social code (Pashtunwali) to create a brutally repressive regime. Its policies included the near-total exclusion of women from public life (including employment and education), the systematic destruction of non-Islamic artistic relics (as occurred in the town of Bamiyan), and the implementation of harsh criminal punishments." :)
    1
  67.  @bobhabib7662  No, child. I've never claimed to be a socialist, because i'm not one.
    1
  68.  @bobhabib7662  Again, minus the fact that fascists and nazis are proudly right wing anti-socialist movements.
    1
  69.  @bobhabib7662  So, hold on, you think the proud american conservatives and taliban conservatives are "textbook socialists?" Interesting. Is this you coming out as a socialist?
    1
  70.  @bobhabib7662  So wait, you think the taliban are socialists, despite being by definition conservatives, because you made up a definition of socialism... that also includes american conservatives?
    1
  71.  @bobhabib7662  No, child. That is not the definition of socialism. You might not like that, but that's the fact.
    1
  72.  @bobhabib7662  No, child, that would be you. After all, i've been able to easily school you on these topics for a few hours now, while all you seem to have are random assertions that are backed by little more than your fanatic devotion to ignorance. Of course, TIK like you has attempted to cope with the fact that fascists and nazis are far right anti-socialist conservatives, but he hasn't gotten very far, just like you. Of course, fascism and nazism are not socialist movements, as we've been over, but it's very telling that your "definition" solidly includes yourself as a socialist. Conservatives, for example, proudly require subservience to the state and either insult or actively suppress those that go against said state, conservatives are more than happy with a failing economy that limits the opportunities of individuals within said economies through using the state to bolster private market and restrict the ways that individuals can work against them, and of course, conservatives are well known for their totalitarian state control which they use to force their moral views onto people. Funny, how conservatives fit your definition of socialism better than most socialists. Socialism is, of course, not the use of the state to control the means of production, but is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Funny how actual dictionaries seem to consistently disprove your narrative. Of course, as we've been over, the taliban is a far right, ultra-conservative group (by definition, if you remember) and much like modern conservatives, they actively fight against feminism, and think that women should take traditional roles within the household. Despite the fact that historically, socialist states advocated for women to have just the same right to work or not as me, you think this conservative policy is "another socialist dictatorship?" It's interesting, the religion substitution would imply, again, that american conservatism is just another form of socialism. And perhaps that's true, after all, american conservatives and 1940's german conservatives are just as socialist as eachother. Again, you'll notice that your definition of socialism in fact does not line up with an actual dictionary definition, and in fact, lines up with the actual definition of their ideology, that is, a more extreme form of conservatism. Do the taliban advocate for "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole?" Of course they don't. They aren't socialists. You say they are, but that's all you have, just your sole assertion. You, quite literally, made up the definition of socialism, and then pretended that said definition isn't just your assertion. You might not like the fact that the dictionary itself proves you wrong, you may cry and scream and accuse them of being a "woke progressive," but those are the facts. Child, you weren't even talking to me, and yet you seem to think that random capitalists pushing policy that marx himself opposed are somehow furthering some "socialist dictatorship." No, child, i've stuck to the facts, i've given evidence and arguments. You've tried to avoid the facts, but they don't go away that easily. Where are those conservative street gangs? Child, you're the one encouraging them. After all, as we've been over, conservatives despise individuality and self determination, and are more than willing to use force, individual, social, political, economic force, to impose their will onto others. You hate that fact, don't you? Child, no matter how much you have to cope with this fact, i'm still not a socialist. And, unlike you, I actually have arguments that reflect reality. Don't forget, child, to you, everyone is socialist, including yourself, so why exactly should I bother to deal with your accusations? After all, by your definition, the biggest economy in the world is socialist, as is everyone in it. I'm sure you're getting some laugh out of this, child. That's why you were so worried when the dictionary proved you wrong, right?
    1
  73.  @bobhabib7662  So, let's use your definition elsewhere. If someone decided to criminalize abortion, they would be asking for subservience to the state, and the moral view of the state in question on abortion. They would be limiting the economic opportunities of individuals who got abortions, who were criminalized because of abortions, or who no longer had access to abortions. and, of course, they would be using a strong state to enforce compliance with these rules. Therefore, all "pro-lifers" are socialists! Oh, what's your position on abortion, btw?
    1
  74.  @bobhabib7662  Awww, you're still running away from basic facts, aren't you? Again, when I bring up things like the authoritarianism present in conservative principles, conservative policies from police militarization to the military themselves, from healthcare to voting to religious views to economy to minorities, whenever that authoritarianism is brought up, you either deflect, or ignore. When the right literally fits your definition of socialism, and yet stands for policies that you despise, you either deflect, or ignore. when the violence committed by conservative figures is brought up, and the constant attacks against groups that conservatives demonize are made known, you ignore, deflect, or worse, openly deny. when citation is brought to your attention that proves you wrong, you just ignore it, or insult the source on an unrelated matter only countered by your personal view, never touching the actual source. Funny how everything you accuse others of, makes more sense when applied to yourself.
    1
  75.  @bobhabib7662  so... deflection, then. amazing strategy
    1
  76.  @bobhabib7662  No, child, it's a common criticism because it's accurate, and thus, one conservatives would prefer buried. After all, when they do something wrong, it must be a lone actor, but when they have to go back decades to find the fault of the left, well, that's just because of some leftist "narrative," hm? Now, what you mean by "proven false" is random denial, usually from youtubers, online figures, or right wing blogs, which is to say not proven wrong, but denied. And so, when no major retractions happen (because none are warranted) the right can justify their further denial, and their impulse to ignore or move past the crimes reported by media rather than dealing with them. Oh,. by the way, the brownshirts were proud conservatives, just like those that emulate them today. In any case, you call "propaganda" what can be proven as basic reality, and when media outlets don't subscribe to your narrative, you condemn them. The fact that you genuinely feel that mass shootings, vandalism, street attacks and beatings can be dismissed, going back decades, says a lot about your allegiance to modern bigoted movements. Of course, when random individual acts that happen against conservatives take place, rather than using the same critical eye, they take them as fact and weaponize those deaths without thought, often without care for the facts of the case. When conservatives attack, the conservative media is silent. So, please. Deflection doesn't change the facts. The right is authoritarian, violent, and bigoted, and you support that.
    1
  77.  @bobhabib7662  I would be happy to post my answer again. Essentially, to repeat myself, i'm not a socialist, though saying that means nothing given your made up definition of socialism.
    1
  78.  @bobhabib7662  Ah, more pointless assertions and empty insults. Of course, socialism isn't when the government does stuff, especially given that socialism can exist without government. Socialism is a left wing political philosophy because it rejects hierarchy and holds equality as a core value. Again, there are plenty of left wing beliefs, some socialist strains included, that don't care about government policies, or actively reject them. the fact that you think that UBI or healthcare are "socialism" says a lot. Voting rights are individual rights. And it is conservatives who are trying to militarize the police, expand the military, force heir ideology and religion on others. The conservative ideology is, by definition, a sweeping society-wide philosophy with the primary goal of spreading, and enforcing, conservative moral systems. Moral systems that would not exist in a truly free or democratic society, and thus, they must be enforced, and violently. Conservatism is force. The fact that you don't even understand these basic economic facts says a hell of a lot about your age and experience.
    1
  79.  @Nyet-Zdyes  No, child. Literally all of this is wrong. Anarchism is against rightism, socialism doesn't requite totalitarianism, hitler was a proud right winger, and so on. You ignorant children really need to pick up a history book, and stop supporting such collectivist nonsense
    1
  80.  @Nyet-Zdyes  Of course, over here in reality, there's nothing about social ownership of the means of production, or historical analysis focusing on class conflict, that requires strong government. It's ok, you can admit your ignorance on this subject, and your ignorance of the long history of anti-state leftism. Returning the wealth of those stolen from is about as liberty-intensive as I think you really can get, justice for the individual, against the power-hungry. Anarchism is liberty, individualism, yes, and that's why it historically started as an offshoot of socialism, and ever since then, has condemned the right, capitalism, and conservatism in the strongest possible terms. The fact that you think a socialist government is one that "redistributes wealth" showcases your fundamental ignorance. Libertarian socialism isn't an oxymoron, at one time it was a redundancy, before capitalists proudly attempted to steal and twist terms to support their own agenda. Socialism best exists when the people represent their own interests, rather than working through the state. Socialism absolutely can exist without government force, or government, for that matter. You seem to be confused, including the proud anti-socialist hitler in that list, but i'l let it slide. In any case, could I not say then that there's a "REASON" socialism results in people like Einstein, Debs, MLK, Greeley, and so on? Socialism, of course, doesn't require a strong government, nor does any aspect of social ownership require that the individual lose any of their autonomy, that is, unless they were an individual actively taking it from others. Socialism more than tolerates individualism. It is built off of a moral foundation of justice for the individual, liberation from the cogs of the capitalist machine, to socialists anyway. Funny how you claim I "showcased ignorance" when your entire responses was based off of nothing but your own imagination. Projection, much?
    1
  81.  @bobhabib7662  But you didn't, and I didn't. I've never called myself a socialist, because I simply am not one. As I proved by literally using the dictionary definition of socialism, you failed to accurately define it, as socialism is not defined as state control of the means of production. Not just because state control exits without socialism, but because socialism can exist without the state. You can insult me all you want kid, bt you can hardly call my assertions the "delusional fantasy" when i'm the only one here actually quoting the dictionary and citing my points. But please, let's continue your denialist cope, it's hilarious.
    1
  82.  @bobhabib7662  Yes, you said a bunch of random groups somehow classified as socialist, but then instantly walked back on this when you decided to criticize a dictionary for... saying the same thing as you. You said that communists were socialists, and then got pissed when someone said the same. In any case, socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." and communism is defined by being a "philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state." So, there's some overlap, but communism is distinct from socialism, and to call them the same, or sub-divisions of one or the other, is just false. Again, child, you're free to hurl as many insecure insults as you want, but every time you do so, you only prove your tendency to project further. Feel free to actually read my responses, and stop failing to even use your own definitions, while constantly deflecting.
    1
  83.  @bobhabib7662  The problem is, I have shown those things. Your only option when I do so is to deflect, run away, or ignore.
    1
  84.  @bobhabib7662  You are denying their past, given that the brownshirts were proud antisocialist conservatives, which is why you idolize them so much.
    1
  85.  @bobhabib7662  No, child, I have yet to deflect in any sense. But, since you've lost the argument, you've decided to just pretend that you haven't, run away from the points that you've been proven wrong on, and flee from reality. I've shown you proof of the modern right praising hitler and following his ideology word for word. I've shown you the dictionary itself contradicting your narrative on the taliban, on socialism, on basic history. I've reminded you, time and time again, that i'm not a socialist, and you don't know what socialism is. You don't care. This is why you insult, because you and me both know that you don't have anything else you actually can do. Since facts don't back you up, you're hoping insults will instead. Ignore evidence? Child, what evidence? You've never presented any, nor have you claimed to do. When evidence that proves you wrong is brought up, you simply double down on the lies. Are you a socialist, then? PErhaps in your fascistic circles, propaganda is repeated so often that it becomes a truthism, but back here in reality, it's a simple, undisputable fact that the US press is capitalist. They work for profit, they bow down to their private masters, they do everything possible to discredit the left and work with the right, but to extremists like you, even this isn't enough. You've said it yourself, to you, non-conservative capitalists are socialists. Your statement is, of course, disputed, given that there's no evidence to support it. It's amazing how deep your cognitive dissonance is, you somehow think that the biggest media corporations in the world are actually super unpopular, despite yourself calling huge swathes of the population socialist. Stick to one story, dude. Not everyone you dislike is a socialist. The US press is capitalist. The Brownshirts weren't socialists, child. Again, you present your assertion without evidence, without argumentation, without logic. You just blurt it out and run. They were proud anti-socialist conservatives, hence their constant attacks upon the left and alliances with conservative parties. Did you know that Hitler objected to the inclusion of "socialist" in the party name, and later purged those that pushed it through? That he, publicly and privately, objected to the term socialist, and its historical association? You didn't know that, did you? This is why, in the films of old, you'll see these proud right wingers marching alongside their conservative bretheren, proudly proclaiming their shared alligiance to the far right anti-socialist nazi party. You, child, are denying their past. Try as they might, conservatives can't ever actually divorce themselves from their history of totalitarianism, bigotry, genocide, ethnonationalism, and so on. Largely because they still advocate for those policies. Socialists, on the other hand, have a large history of non-authoritarianism, hell, anti-authoritarianism, that you try to deny. What's your evidence? Because you say so. No, child, the evidence of history proves you wrong. You don't like this fact, so you simply ignore it, and run away. You call me a socialist, likely as an excuse to later purge me if you get your way, and yet are uninterested in actually proving that assertion. You don't like hearing about the history of conservatism, because it paints you in a bad light, however true it is. Socialism isn't totalitarianism, and it never will be. Conservatism leads to suffering and death. History proves it. It's amazing how, rather than dealing with facts about conservatism in a rational way, your first instinct is to dismiss any sort of ideological flaw without reason, merely trying to deflect or insult to get away from the facts of your ideology. Still not a socialist child, and again, what "historical evidence?" Who has actually presented citations and definitions? Me. Who has been proven wrong, time and time again, and has also failed to actually provide a shred of evidence for their frankly hilarious views? You, of course. You still try to pretend i'm some sort of socialist, and yet in the process, actively project the goals of the right onto the left. It wasn't the left, after all, that brought a named noose to the capital building. I mean hell, you literally advocate for socialists to be killed off, using the very same rhetoric the original nazis used to refer to the very same groups, and yet you lack self awareness at such a profound level that you don't even realize that. "Cancer, eating society from within?" Damn, where have I heard that before...
    1
  86.  @bobhabib7662  Wow, you are a literal child. "They're socialist because they are!" No reasoning, no argumentation, just your own childish rage. Well, thank you for finally admitting that you were proven wrong. It took a while, sure, but you got there eventually. It was easy demolishing your arguments, child. Don't forget that, by your definition, you're a socialist.
    1
  87.  @bobhabib7662  Child, you can't dance around the definition. Socialism is not government control or ownership of the means of production. You have yet to offer a refutation of this simple fact. Now you're pretending I deleted some exchange just because you made something up? Do you have any evidence, child? Funny, for a person that keeps raging about the "historically accepted definition of socialism," you seem to despise dictionaries and abhor actually posting any evidence of said history or definition.
    1
  88. ​ @bobhabib7662  Part 1 Perhaps they weren't random, simply because they all shared one thing in common. Whether true or not, you claimed to dislike all of them. That's about it, however. You included everyone from authoritarian traditionalists to religious conservatives to moderate capitalists in your definition of socialist, despite never actually being able to cite your definition of socialism. No child, they aren't all socialists, and I have more evidence than just one person's word. I have the dictionary definition of socialism which, strangely, you've elected to ignore, with no countering evidence. You said that socialism doesn't mean communism, despite previously saying that communism is socialism, and that all communists are socialists. You specifically named a number of conservatives and unrelated anti-capitalist ideologies as "Socialist," again, despite actually being able to provide citation for this definition of yours. Surprise surprise, i'm the only one to have actually provided the historical definition of socialism, and your conservative friends the taliban and the nazis/fascists don't fit it. You're apparently trying to backtrack a second time, now attempting to ignore the fact that you previously did the very thing you criticize the dictionary for doing. So, let's recap. I provided a dictionary definition showing, in detail, how the taliban were conservatives, after you had asserted without evidence that they were socialists. When faced with this evidence, you decided to ignore it because the dictionary did the very thing you yourself did, and because it didn't use your same definition of socialism, the definition you asserted without evidence. In other words, you were faced with evidence, and being unable to address it, you deflected to another unrelated criticism, ignoring that said criticism also applied to you. Also ignoring the fact that a simple search through the dictionary in question shows two different articles for socialism and communism, with different definitions. You have elected to ignore all of this, either due to your illiteracy, or your ideological fanaticism. Child, I hate to break it to you, but you can't just list ideologies you disagree with and call them socialist without evidence. Fascism, nazism, and theocracies are all intergral to the history of the right, and are conservative ideologies. Hell, the classification of left and right, as well as the term "Conservative," was created to describe absolute monarchs. The founder of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, was himself a proud supporter of a theocratic system, subordinate to an aristocratic state. No, child, none of these are forms of socialism, and as we've been over, the definition of socialism is not "Government that controls the means of production." If this was the "historically agreed" definition of socialism, a simple search of the dictionary wouldn't provide an entirely different definition, and a simple search of the same dictionary for totalitarian movements wouldn't describe, in depth, their conservatism. You want to pretend that the dictionary, yes, the dictionary itself, is the produce of some "20 year old woke intern," and yet you have no evidence that any of these descriptions or definitions are inaccurate, you just don't like them because they prove you wrong. There's nothing to "understand or accept," besides the simple fact that you're wrong. I'm sorry you feel a desire to separate nazis from their history, but it doesn't change the facts. No, child, i've never been a socialist, and i've never written otherwise. The fact that you just assumed that I had called myself a socialist, and yet now need to make up a story to justify that since no evidence of your assertion exists, speaks volumes. I hate to break it to you, but by definition, religious traditionalists are conservative, and the taliban follow an explicitly conservative strain of their religion and bac it up with a conservative political ideology. Again, see the dictionary, and let's throw in the dictionary definition of traditionalism and conservatism as well: Traditionalism, "the upholding or maintenance of tradition, especially so as to resist change." Conservatism, "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation." Both from Oxford Languages, and practically synonymous. In fact, if one were to look up the synonyms of traditionalism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one finds the list "conservatism, conservativeness, die-hardism, reactionaryism, ultraconservatism," and in the antonyms section, you would find "broad-mindedness, liberalism, liberalness, open-mindedness, progressivism." So, no, being religious traditionalists, by definition, makes them conservative. The fact that you don't know the definition of their own ideology is on you. No, child the entire point of conservatism is enforcing hierarchies of superiority and conservative moral principles, not "Self reliance." If self reliance was all it took to be a conservative, then the USSR was further right than Trump. No, child, the "Collectivist attitude of the taliban" is mirrored exactly in the collectivist attitude of modern conservatism, particularly modern religious american conservatism. So, no child, quite literally every dictionary on the shelf, as well as every history book on the subject, proves you wrong. I'm well aware they don't amount to a hill of beans to you, because again, you are unwilling to accept any information that contradicts your predetermined narrative, and furthermore, you're unwilling to provide evidence or argumentation to support it. I would agree that religion can take many forms, and be integrated into government many different ways, but forcing religion on people, particularly with the justification of enforcing traditional moral norms, is an explicitly conservative policy. A socialist can be religious, a theocracy can only be conservative. The taliban aren't theocratic socialists, as we've been over, they don't fit the definition of socialism. They do, however, fit the definition of conservatism. You can capitalize all the terms you want, it just shows how desperate you are. One can quite literally trace their sect of religious belief back to middle eastern conservative movements that push the same things as you, one can take a single look at their actions and easily connect them to the dictionary definition of conservatism, and one could subvert all of that hard work and simply look at their own dictionary page, which clearly outlines their conservative ideology, and where said ideology originated. There is evidence besides a single site saying so, that was the point of me including further information on their specific religious beliefs and the origins of them, all of which you can look into, and all of which point back to conservatism. No, child, that still isn't "textbook socialism," a lie that you continue to repeat even after literally being shown the textbook definition of socialism. We've been over this, but i'll remind you that you have yet to provide any evidence that proves your definition of socialism, and you furthermore have yet to respond to the fact that modern conservatives themselves fit your definition of socialism, even if said definition has, interestingly changed since the last time you posted it. After all, they 1) desire to create a society based around religion, and forcing people to adhere to those religious norms, 2) regulate the economic and social activity of their citizens along the lines of said norms, and 3) enforce said regulation with threats of imprisonment, harassment, or death. That isn't textbook socialism at all. How long until you understand that your "self reliance, small government" definition of conservatism has no historical basis, and that the very actions of conservatives prove this definition wrong? I agree, the actions of modern conservatives, according to your own definition, have a scary amount of commonality with their primary inspiration, the far right nazi party. In any case, you seem to think that pushing conservative moral views is just pushing socialism from a different "focal point." I'm happy to have conclusively proven that the taliban are, and always have been, conservative, a simple fact you have been unable to rebut.
    1
  89.  @bobhabib7662  Part 2 I hate to break it to you, but nationalism, patriotism, and the vast majority of expressions of Abrahamic religion (among others) are "collectivist." Nationalism is defined as "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." Nothing about the individual, just the nation, that collective of people. Funny how you apply the term "collectivist" so sparingly. No, child, you cannot prop up the individual while supporting the type of collectivist nationalism that defines the USA/taliban. Child, that's the literal dictionary definition, hence the quotation marks around it. And if you could actually read, you'd be able to see that the government is not listed as the owner of the means of production, but rather the people themselves, collectively. So no, it is not. In any case, not everything the government owns is owned by "the public," and most things owned or controlled by either group do not fit the definition of a corporation. A corporation owned collectively by the people does not imply said people make up the state, or even that any state exists at all. You know that worker coops don't require state enforcement, right? So, no, child, you don't get it yet. Government owned/controlled =/= the definition of socialism. I've quite literally provided you with the definition of socialism, a fact you are now trying to dance around. Socialism, again, is defined as social ownership or the means of production being socially owned, social ownership being defined as communal/collective/community ownership. IS not the central government owning or controlling the means of production, though certain socialists advocate for a government that is wholly representative of the people. Ownership and control, both social, are necessary for an economy to be socialist. I hate to break it to you, but the nazis didn't do anything like that. Again, not only is that definition of socialism incorrect, the historical record doesn't even support your conclusion with that definition. The nazis did not desire nor enact either control or ownership over private property, as ideologically, they favored private property and opposed socialism. They neither owned nor controlled it fully, and saw economies of either system as failures, like you do. You have to lie about both the definition of socialism and the actions of the nazis to correlate the two. No, child. They were anti-socialists because of their actions. They were conservatives, not just because someone says so, but because they themselves, through action policy and rhetoric proved it, and every historian afterwards has merely cemented that fact. Child, despite your "no u" "arguments," I still remain the only person here that has cited the definition of socialism and who qualifies under it. You, on the other hand, have either deflected, projected, or flat out ran when evidence of simple reality was shown to you. You have denied basic facts about socialism, conservativism, and everything in between, and your constant attempts to derail or deflect show just how insecure in your assertions you are. Arguments aren't shouting things over and over until your opponent gives up. Arguments involve proving things, something I, and only I out of the two of us, has done. Cry about it, commie.
    1
  90.  @bobhabib7662  Let it be remembered that you got so ideologically owned, you had to call me a socialist so you wouldn't have to actually respond to my points, and when the evidence you asserted that proved that I was a socialist never actually turned up, you just made up a story about me deleting it, despite never actually providing said evidence in the first place. That is the mark of the truly insecure, and I think that is final proof of my final victory. When you get to the point that you're saying things like "My constantly changing definition is historically correct and 100% unanimously agreed upon, ignore those dictionaries those are just woke 20 year olds!" you've conceded the argument.
    1
  91.  @bobhabib7662  It's amazing. Even after all this time, you still can't cope with the simple fact that the nazis weren't socialists and that nothing you say will ever disprove this basic reality.
    1
  92.  @bobhabib7662  Yes, the point being that you're a proud ignorant child, and this is something you proudly admit it.
    1
  93.  @bobhabib7662  thank you for conceding the argument.
    1
  94.  @bobhabib7662  And again, despite having no evidence for your claims, and despite being proven wrong in the past time and time again, you continue to assert that the historically totalitarian ideology of conservatism "doesn't believe in big government," despite you yourself advocating for "big government." A right wing state, on average, has more power than a left wing one. I know you wish to gloss over this fact, since it disproves your narrative, but it isn't going away. So yes, as i've proven, right wing governments can (and most often are) large and encompassing. And that is the exact point. The fact that you genuinely prize your ignorance so much is a bit baffling. For one, the phrase "well regulated" is still a topic of debate even among constitutional scholars, the reading of which is largely dependent on the political biases of the reader, and yours being fascistic, you wish to be able to threaten the left with arms. Furthermore, again, we run into the problem of your ignorance and self-centered attitude towards history. The word "arms" was used because at the time, things like nuclear weapons didn't exist, and because weapons that can casually achieve the sort of destruction that we accept as common place today, were utterly unthinkable in those times. Frankly said, there is no real way to justify the idea that the founding fathers desired individuals to be able to own and operate weapons of mass destruction, rather, you have to leap into the tedious specifics of their exact wording, and argue that they were somehow in favor of something they had never heard of and had no way to conceive of. Furthermore, again, you can at least attempt to be consistent with your nonsense. Why can't I as an individual own a nuclear bomb? The upkeep of one isn't that expensive, if i'm rich enough to afford it in the first place, and have the space, why could I not own a weapon of that destructive capability? Do you see the point yet? Your argument has gotten caught up on the fact that it isn't rationally possible or actually consistent, and so you fail to answer questions that point this simple fact out. Uh... yes? Border controlling, socialist-hating, corporation supporting obama, who openly bragged about being considered a republican in a different time, was not a leftist. But then again, you think everyone to the right of Rand was a leftist. And no, child, as i've proven over and over, fascists are far right conservatives that reject socialism, and thus they are not socialists. How is far right conservatism a "form of socialism?" Similarly, hitler originally rejected the title "Socialism," fought strongly against it, and later purged those that proposed it while attempting to distance himself from the term. And no, child, bending your will to the state is a damn common conservative policy, one you yourself call for. And I know you're running away from yet another conversation, but frankly your ignorance is sad. You're unable to actually bring new information into your mind, you simply pretend said information doesn't exist and dismiss it without a second thought. This is how you proved that you don't know what you're talking about, and how I proved you wrong.
    1
  95.  @bobhabib7662  So, you're as much of a socialist as the nazis?
    1
  96.  @bobhabib7662  Are you ever going to actually attempt to prove your assertion that "Conservatives don't do big government," despite them doing it today?
    1
  97.  @bobhabib7662  They were as socialist as you, child.
    1
  98.  @bobhabib7662  Again, you seem not to understand the dictionary definition of socialism, but that's been well established and admitted by you at this point. Yes, the nazis protected private property, praised it, worked with it, supported it, and allowed it to compete and profit as it had before, under a capitalist economy. Since, of course, your assertions are false, you'll be sure to apologize and work with new factual information you've been given, right? Of course, the nazis (As i've explained) are far right traditionalist conservatives, but since you can't deal with this fact, you ignore it. They weren't socialists, because they despised social ownership, despised state ownership, and much like you, praised conservatism and private ownership. Since, of course, the state was not interested in enforcing an economy of private corporations that already supported the nazis, you have been yet again, proven wrong. The literal definition of socialism discounts the nazis. I'm sorry that you can't get over your humiliating defeat here, but never forget - I have cited facts. You have run away.
    1
  99.  @bobhabib7662  Yes, theoretically one can push conservative, religion based moral views without themselves subscribing to the religion, but this in no way addresses the definition of conservatism itself. Again, child, you cannot claim to be on the side of facts when you simply dismiss all citation presented without evidence of your own. There is no "bias" in the objectively correct definition I have posted. The Taliban, as an organization, are conservative because they push for a conservative theoretic rule based on conservative religious positions. Conservatives do literally believe in using the government as an instrument of control, you yourself believe that, and yet you deny it without basis. A conservative that doesn't force their beliefs onto people is no less of a socialist than a conservative that does. Because, as we've been over, conservatism (such as the nazis, taliban, republican party) and socialism are incompatible. Conservative force is still conservative. Child, no. Nothing in any definition of socialism, especially not ones i've literally cited, says that one becomes a socialist when they force their beliefs onto others with use of the state. Again, you are defining "the difference" in such a way that you are proudly calling the vast majority of conservatives secret socialists. Of course, your silly notion that the Taliban are somehow socialist is completely refute, ground into dust as an argument, and you have yet to provide any points or evidence to counter the historical humiliation I just put you though. You made up a definition of socialism, and I pointed out that not only does this definition not fit any dictionary or historical record, not only did you change said definition, but in fact, it fit your ideology more than any socialist. You simply ignored this fact, and went on coping. You continue to make absurd claims, and rather than justify them, you simply state them as if they need no argument. What stops a socialist from being religious? Apparently, they can't be, just because you've never heard of religious socialists. The history of religious socialism literally goes back to the very beginning of socialism as a concept, with christian monks that believe in collective work and collective reward. As we've been over, most socialists don't believe in state control and socialism is not defined by state control, but you don't like that, do you? "Desperately?" Child, I proved that the nazis were proud right wing anti-socialists days ago. As of yet, you have not provided any information, citation, or argumentation to counter it. Rather, you just keep repeating the notion that the nazis had socialism in their name, ignoring that hitler openly opposed this change and purged those that proposed it. And I know you don't want to listen to facts, champ, you make it obvious. Why would you look at the 25 point platform, a document written years before hitler was elected by his enemies, which he condemned, and assume it's reflective of nazi ideology? Hitler himself proudly stated that he had no intention of abolishing private property. Again, socialism is defined by collective control, not state control, and hitler despised both. Oh, and i'm well aware that the nazi 25 point plan doesn't include anything about "small government" or "individual freedom," they were conservatives after all, or did you already forget? Conservatives love big, encompassing government restricting individual freedom. But your definition did change, you stated two different three-point definitions and apparently couldn't even keep them straight. In any case, as i've already proven, socialism is not the state controlling the means of production, and despite you constantly aledging that it's the historical definition (ignoring anti-state socialists) and that it's the popularly accepted definition, you still fail to provide any proof of that claim. The three constantly-changing points you highlighted went to show that conservatives, by your own definition, were socialist, more so than many socialists in fact. The nazis/fascists, like modern conservatives, used the state to push conservative goals and moral views. Communists, if they used the state, did so to fight these conservatives. They had these things in common... because that's how a state works. They weren't "all socialist," given that 2/3rds of the stated groups were proud conservatives, much like yourself.
    1
  100.  @bobhabib7662  lmao, "if you change the definition, it's just like my definition!"
    1
  101.  @bobhabib7662  so, why do you support the policies of proud conservative Adolf Hitler again? You keep avoiding that question.
    1
  102.  @bobhabib7662  But I have, i've proven you wrong in place after place, and to be frank i'm only still here because it's fun to clown on you and showcase your utter ignorance. I'm simply telling the truth about history, something you wish to deny, and I understand why. The history of the right is one of amoral action, hypocrisy, state control and unending force. I mean hell, you're literally advocating for a system without public schooling, and then asserting that its actually the socialists who want ignorance? In any case, what do you mean I don't want a debate? Child, we had a debate, I won, you ran away, and now you're back to cope with defeat in an even more pathetic way. You have nothing of value. History proves the evils of conservatism, from the monarchs to the fascists, and proves that they haven't changed a bit. History shows that totalitarianism, in all but a few modern cases, has been a proudly right wing tradition. You don't want to admit this, you call your greatest inspirations socialist, but you can't erase it.
    1
  103.  @bobhabib7662  But you do. You advocate for the government stepping in to stop abortions, advocated for them to stop the BLM "riots," advocate for them to build a strong military, advocate for them to pass laws against immigration and laws about the freedoms of gay people, and so on. You are, by your own definition, a socialist. You've said it many times, yes, but each time you've failed to prove it. Of course, nazis and fascists are not socialists, they like you are proud authoritarian conservatives. Communists aren't socialists, they're communists, and the modern progressive left is outspokenly in favor of capitalism. Funny, conservatives (including you) share this common desire for state control, and socialists/communists often advocate against it. All of the "Regimes" listed show simply that you don't like history, and don't want to admit when you're wrong. None of these fit the definition of socialism, and are therefore, not socialists. Again, your only argument is that they are what you say they are, because you say so. This childish position utterly ignores the definition that you have insulted and attempted to rewrite, ignores history, and ignores the policies you yourself advocate for.
    1
  104.  @bobhabib7662  But they were conservatives, and outspokenly so. Like most modern conservatives, they advocated for the state to be able to force their moral views, and like modern conservatives, they took to the street when the state at the time failed to do that. If this is socialism, you're a socialist. And again, not sure how you just found out about the 25 point plan, but let me explain a little something. It was a pamphlet written to convince voters, years before hitler ever got near a position of power. It was written by the strasserite faction of the nazi party, the very faction that added "Socialist" to the party name, and that eventually declared the party as one which was hostile to socialism, and began leaving. Not soon enough, though, since hitler had them all killed, after his differences with Strasser himself manifested in hitler proudly rejecting the 25 point plan and declaring that he would not touch private property. What is socialist about opposing socialism? I'm not denying, child. I just educated you on a subject that you apparently just learned about.
    1
  105.  @bobhabib7662  Well, yes, because by your own definition you're a socialist, and thus a filthy commie. Child, I cited that definition literal days before you did, so thanks for admitting that you haven't read my comments. In any case, you don't even agree with the definition you posted, how do I agree with you? Of course, the nazis weren't socialists, which is why you had to change the definition.
    1
  106.  @bobhabib7662  What "overwhelming evidence?" You mean the evidence that you've never presented, and insulted because you know it proves you wrong?
    1
  107.  @bobhabib7662  Awww, thank you for conceding the argument. After all, there's not much more you can do after your argument was ground to dust, and your flimsy assertions were instantly disproven. Perhaps come up with a better argument next time, one that takes a little longer than a single second to pulverize?
    1
  108.  @bobhabib7662  It's funny, there's always a point in debate with people like you, where I can tell that you've just given up. No more arguments, no more rebuttals, just saying the same thing and hoping that it sticks a bit better than last time. I had hoped that it was able to reach you with reason, logic, facts, but you rejected all of them, in favor of ideology. There's no facade, child, and i'm still no socialist. I've given you source after source, argument after argument, overwhelming evidence proving you wrong, and what was your response? Insults, deflections, denial. I didn't refuse to acknowledge the dictionary definition, child, I posted it long before you did, and then pointed out that you literally had to change it to support your point, even as you insulted it and called the definition itself biased. You never showed how the nazis fit even your definition, you simply said it over and over again, and when I pointed out that conservatives fit your vague, changing lists of supposedly "socialist" criteria, you simply ignored that and walked away. When it was proven to you that the nazis and fascists despised leftism, and that they engaged in the age-old conservative tradition of using the state to repress progressives and socialists, you had nothing left to say. You couldn't deal with the definition, couldn't deal with the fact that even your definition could not be applied to the groups you're talking about, and couldn't deal with your ignorance regarding this subject and constant denial of modern right wing politics. I have no desire to "fool" anyone, child, that's why I cite sources, prove my points, prove you wrong. Again, your constant attempts at bravado are all well and good, but I do hope you realize that anyone can read through this thread. Anyone can see that, of the two of us, only one has made any attempt to "Review the information," to cite sources, to comply with historical fact, and that's been me. You insult it, because you can't prove it wrong. You have yet to refute anything, and despite your attempts at a bluff, it seems you've given up even trying. Perhaps this is a good learning opportunity for you, hm? You were demolished, and maybe, just maybe, when you grow up you'll be able to understand how and why.
    1
  109.  @bobhabib7662  Ah, so we can add a selective memory or tendency to erase the past to the long list of fallacious tactics you've engaged in? Child, all you have left are personal insults. You say one in the very paragraph you claim they mean nothing in. Come on, at least try here. Child, do you honestly think you're fooling anyone? Seriously, what's the point of pretending that this was anything but a one-sided debate, with you ending up humiliated and proven wrong, only still here because of your own personal pride? In our "public debate," I managed to present facts, you managed to present insults, assertions, apologia and denialism. Since you got wiped all over the floor in all of this, and since it was so easy to do so, I understand your desire to lie to yourself to salvage your ego, but it's too late for that. You apparently don't even realize what the debate is about, given i've never engaged in "socialism is good rhetoric," but then again, it's not too surprising that's the spin you want to attempt. It's ok, child. You were owned, destroyed, demolished, humiliated, atomized, proven hilariously and humiliatingly wrong. It happens. Now you've just got to learn from the experience. You can do that, right?
    1
  110.  @bobhabib7662  Ah, and yet more deflections and mindless assertions. No evidence provided, nothing but your own word, and on subjects you've been proen wrong on so many times before. What a shame.
    1
  111.  @bobhabib7662  I agree. We both know that you cannot prove your point, given that every single one of the requests you have made above has been answered before, and you, knowing that, wish to delay your hurt pride and keep your ideological humiliation going for as long as possible, despite the fact that you've said all this before, and i've refuted it.
    1
  112.  @bobhabib7662  Ah, more attempted artificial ignorance. How surprising. 1) I've literally cited you giving two different definitions of socialism, and cited you giving a definition of socialism that you claimed supported your point, while also openly admitting to changing said definition. You had no response. 2) Except the actual definition you cited, of course, all socialists, and historians. You continue to claim that no one disagrees with the idea that socialism is government control, and yet have never provided any evidence for this, and when it's pointed out that your assertion is incorrect, you blame "woke 20 year olds," as if you're unaware of how unpopular your viewpoint really is. The definition in question openly defined socialism as social/communal control, which as we've been over, is not state control. You attempted to change the definition, I called you out, you had zero response. 3) Again, child, why do you keep deflecting? Why do you keep attacking socialism as an ideology, rather than sticking to the discussion of the historical definition? Your criticisms aren't even accurate, would you like to explain how, say, MLK or Debs pushed their views with "threat of force," or how their advocacy led to "oppression, poverty, and death?" 4) Again, we've been over this so many times that it's embarrassing for you. Of course, in reality, your definition of socialism is flawed and you have never, not a single time, attempted to cite evidence that supports said definition. Fascists/nazis, historically and in the modern day, are of the right. Conservative movements like Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, ect, push the same political proposals and views as their american counterparts. After all, there is nothing in the definition of conservatism, or in the historical actions of conservatives, that discounts them from using the state, or threatening to do so, to get their way. These groups want to forcibly inflict their conservatism onto the populace. None are socialist given that they a. hate social control of the means of production and b. love conservatism, and there's no such thing as a conservative socialist. 5) The problem is, i've "grasped" what you're trying to say, and easily refuted it over and over for the past few days, giving citation after citation, tearing your arguments to bits. Of course, since you're unable to back up your points, you have to pretend this doesn't happen. I have never reached the levels of ignorance that you brag about, and I have no desire to lie about history, unlike you. Of course, none of the ideologies you have listed meet the "Textbook" definition of socialism, or really any definition. If this was wrong, you'd be able to prove a definition that you didn't have to change, but we both know that isn't happening. All of the movements above are proud conservatives that align with you in the majority of their views. In any case child, it's telling that you admit that you don't want to own up to your political past, because that viewpoint is made readily apparent by your statements here. You don't want to own up to the fact that the nazis/fascists, like you, advocated for authoritarian conservative rule, and like you, hated socialists and the left with a burning passion. I'm no socialist, child, I have no reason to deny the past of socialism, which is why i've told nothing but the truth. You, on the other hand, have a very clear motivation to deny the history of conservative fascism. Your assertion here is quite funny. I've made "no counterpoints?" Ok, prove it. You can do that, right? Go through every single one of my responses, and respond to them line by line, including a quote of the line you're responding to. Don't worry, I know you actually won't ever do this, partially out of laziness but certainly as well out of the fact that you are well aware that every single one of my responses provides detailed takedowns of your silly assertions. If you'd like, I can post them all again? Yes, child, we're well aware you have nothing but childish insults, the last throes of your lost debate. Again, how willing are you to actually prove your assertions? In reality, when you asked me to provide examples of why the political structures in question weren't socialist, I did so happily, with citation from several dictionaries. I further went on to prove that conservatives and in general modern right wing policy perfectly fits the definition of socialism, while again, citing conservative policies and your own definition, as well as the history of autocratic conservative authoritarianism.. If you're so sure that I provided "zero evidence," prove it. After all, you (in this very response) reference past citation i've given. Can't keep a story straight? You really need to stop lying, its embarrassing for you. You assert that I said that a conservative must be religious, and yet the first sentence of my response reads "Yes, theoretically one can push conservative, religion based moral views without themselves subscribing to the religion, but this in no way addresses the definition of conservatism itself." Did you not even read the first line? I'm guessing not. Also, you misuse the word "Correlation." There is a heavy correlation between religion, notably more authoritarian/,extreme sects of religion, and the right. You could argue that correlation is not causation, but then again, you specifically said correlation, which is false. Child, do I need to copy-paste my answer in here from the last few times you tried to deflect, saying this? In fact, going forward, if you make a point I've already addressed, while yourself not addressing my rebuttal, I'll simply compile and post a response of my previous takedowns. In any case, just to get it over with one last time, I'm not a socialist and have no interest in defending socialism, every definition i've posted has been from the dictionary and every fact has been cited accurately. You, on the other hand, are interested in defending conservatism/fascism, and don't seem to care if reality gets in the way. In any case, let's do a little experiment. Let me answer your deflationary questions... using your definition of socialism. How "Great" is socialism, by your definition? Well, it's simply the best ideology around, given that by your definition, the strongest economies in the world, from the USA to Germany to Japan to the UK and so on are all socialist. If we look at past "socialist" policies, according to your definition, we see the civil rights movement, the freeing of the slaves, policy that educates millions and actions that get racists and neo-nazis off of the public stage. Of course, we also get the actions of conservatives, but since all of their policies fail, that's not worth mentioning. So, yes child, by your definition, socialism seems to be doing well! The funny thing is, I've answered all of these points before, and we both know it. If you had been able to respond to these points with anything besides your own ego, or really anything at all, we would be in a very different place. But, as of now, you ask questions about socialism as an ideology in this unrelated discussion to attempt to discredit me, and deflect from the debate I wiped the floor with you in. I've claimed victory, and I've proved it. It really isn't that hard to win when your opponent thinks the dictionary itself is propaganda. I, unlike you, have given evidence, and I'd be happy to give it again, but we both know you won't read this far, will you? Oh, I suspect you're very familiar with that point in the debate, namely because you've been acting it out for the last few days. After I made points that you could not refute, and presented evidence that you could not dismiss, you responded in kind by hurling insults and avoiding rebuttals to your assertions, but rather, you just reasserted them. Your desperate, literal "No you!" argument speaks volumes, You claim this is where I am now? Well, prove it. See, in reality, what's happened is that you've made points, and i've responded to them line by line, with citation, evidence, and argumentation. You then either ignore the evidence, insult the evidence, or claim without proof that it's wrong. Every single one of your above statements is not new, you've been saying them for days, and each time I respond. And so I'll stick to my word, for every response you make in which a long-rebutted point is brought up, I'll simply copy-paste my old arguments that you have yet to respond to, until I can wear you down enough to actually get you to engage in the debate. I've given you counterpoints, you've given denials and insults. You assert I cannot prove my points, and yet, I already have, and in fact, I'm th only one here that's provided proof. We all know I already have, and that until the moment you run away, you'll keep repeating long debunked points, deflections, and insults, since you have nothing left.
    1
  113.  @bobhabib7662  And yet, here I am, proving you wrong. If you can be so easily intellectually atomized by someone that's "Delusional," what does that say about you?
    1
  114.  @bobhabib7662  How much are you willing to bet? You seem convinced that, say, i've never provided counter arguments and never provided citation, so how much are you willing to bet on that assertion? I say $100. If I can provide evidence of previously giving evidence, something you admit to, or counterpoints, something you respond to, then I get the money, and you're a proven liar. Deal?
    1
  115.  @bobhabib7662  In case you didn't read the whole response, which i'm afraid is likely your common reaction to being proven wrong, I'll reassert what I said in the original response regarding your "challenge." Whenever you make a point that I have already addressed/refuted with no pushback or valid argumentation/counterpoint on your part, I will simply post the response again, until you eventually actually engage with this debate, rather than simply reasserting your same baseless assertions over and over again after I provided points that even you can't deny.
    1
  116.  @bobhabib7662  Ah, so you're attempting the thing where you hope nobody can read my responses, right? After all, that's all it takes to see that you've been not only addressed, but refuted, proven wrong, and humiliated. That is, after all, why you keep deflecting rather than answer the point
    1
  117.  @bobhabib7662  Funny how you didn't take the bet. Is it because you knew you were wrong? Or is it because you wanted another opportunity to embarrass yourself, this time with trying to rewrite the definition of "Advocate" and "Publicly support."
    1
  118.  @bobhabib7662  P1 Now, while i'm sure you'd love for people to believe that, you on some level must know that anyone, at any time, can read through my responses and see direct, line for line rebuttals of your claims. Of course, i've refuted everything you've said so far, and answered all of your questions, as well as exposing the problems with the questions themselves. I use the word "child" because you seem to have the object permanence of a baby, what with you forgetting to respond to arguments I make. Of course, the fact that you choose to fixate on a single word, rather than the arguments i've presented, tells me two things. 1) it tells me that you know you can't refute my arguments, and 2) it tells me that you're desperate to find any excuse to change the subject. After all, we can all see once again that you cannot refute anything i've said, hence your desperation. But I did. Would you like me to quote the exact moments that I answered every question you asked? I, of course, answered your questions, and then pointed out the flaws in your questions and the hypocrisy evident in your character, due to your constant defense/apologia for authoritarian conservatism. And again, let me remind you that whataboutisms aren't arguments, and that by your definition, the strongest economies in the world are socialist. And here you admit it. See, you know i'm answering, but you're not literate enough to actually read through my comments to see the answer. Your inability to read comments more than a page long, in an in-depth historical discussion where details are key, shows just how unprepared you were for the ideological flogging you've been going through for a few days now. And again, funny that you claim that the "failure of socialism is everywhere," when again, it is by your definition socialist programs and socialist countries which stand on top of the world right now. The state providing and subsidizing medical care all over the world is one of the only reasons that life expectancy is what it is right now, and the private market simply needs the government's help on that one. Funny, of all the supposed "socialist" (capitalist) policies you name, you're unable to find one that has failed in any sense, certainly not when compared to conservative's attempts at solving the same issue, either through apathy or authoritarianism. Funny how you keep calling the things capitalists are most proud of "policies of socialism," of course, without any evidence. Social Security is severely underfunded due to decades of conservative authoritarianism and yet it still helps millions. State run education is the only reason that the jobs market is able to maintain such a high amount of education-intensive jobs. Private housing policy led to the biggest crash of capitalism since the Great Depression, and they got off without punishment. I'm no statist, and i'm no capitalist, but the most successful capitalist countries in history are the ones that embraced these capitalist policies. Funny how you say the state cannot solve problems, and yet advocate for it to solve the "problems" of protest, crime, gay marriage, abortion, and so on. Child, at some point you have to realize that saying "no" is not a rebuttal. I backed you into this corner of reality, I quoted you changing the definition and doing so proudly. I, quite literally using the dictionary, proved that collective control and state control are fundamentally different things, and you decided to deflect to "advocacy," despite the fact that the definition said nothing about "State advocacy," but instead said "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." I'm beginning to think you just can't read the definition. They are "advocating" (desiring, working towards, trying to put into practice) state control. Hope that helps. Socialists advocate for things, capitalists advocate for things, you inserted the government for some reason, one of the many ways you tried to change the definition. Again, child, this is embarrassing for you. The definition outlies what socialists "Advocate for," which in this case literally means what socialists want, and thus what socialism is defined as. You somehow read this as socialists taking over the state and then the state itself starts to want something? That makes no sense, the definition doesn't even mention the state. Government need not "Tell people what to do," but again, apparently you didn't actually read the definition. Child, I'm starting t get genuinely worried for you, you're reaching for straws at an unprecedented level here. I'm no socialist, as i've said many times, but anyway, the definition of advocate is "a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy." Now, I hate to break it to you, to "publicly support" a policy is just to advocate for it, publicly, as in vocally, in public. The definition of "publicly," as in publicly support/advocate, is not "to set policy when you are in charge," but "so as to be seen by other people; in public." Not policy, not control, but "public" like, out in public. You, right now, by definition, are publicly advocating against socialism, and yet you're not in charge of anything. You've somehow managed to convince yourself that a socialist wanting something actually means getting into government and forcing a policy based on that desire. One may potentially lead to the other, but that is no certainty, and they are certainly not the same thing. Control and policy have nothing to do with advocating for your own ideology. I'm beginning to worry for you a bit, champ. You've either gotten so desperate that you're actively trying to misconstrue words in the silliest way possible, when there are far bettr arguments as to your position that you could be making, and then you feel the need to angrily project that onto me. What "word salad," champ?? You're the one that just spent a paragraph trying to claim that "Advocate" means "put into policy." I have no interest in dancing around the facts, as even you have admitted, I am more than happy to address each one of your claims in detail, and leave it utterly wrecked at the end. Socialism, of course, is not state control of the means of production, as i've proven. The nazis, of course, were far right authoritarian conservatives, and not socialists. Both by the actual definition, and by your definition, since they did not desire nor enact state or social control of the means of production. Private property was not only left intact, but strengthened in many place, and private industrialists from all around the world came to work with them, regardless of their other business partners, regardless of their personal thoughts, regardless of "towing the party line" or not. No, child, none of that is socialism, even if it was true, which I have conclusively proven that it was not. Any honest reading of history would tell you that a private-property owning class that operated the private industry and profited immensely from it, was very, very different from the bolsheviks.
    1
  119. ​ @bobhabib7662  P2 Funny how you keep having to lie about not only my words, but yours. You continue to assert that conservatives can't be authoritarian, but you provide no proof. Conservatives have always believed in big government or government control, and whenever I ask you to prove this wrong, you either ignore the question or declare every conservative from Burke to Churchill to be secret socialists. Again, child, all I ask is for you to do more than just state your view and run, be honest, attempt to prove your points instead of avoiding rebuttal. You assert that conservatives don't believe in totalitarianism, that they don't support "big government" programs and control. And yet, when I bring up the history of conservative ideology in absolute monarchs, when I make note of the ideological justification for authoritarianism within conservatism, when I name policies of state control that conservatives near universally advocate for, you ignore them. So, be honest, do conservatives want to make abortion illegal? Do they want to strengthen the military and police? Do they want to enforce the border? Since the answer to all of those things are yes, how is this not "big government programs/control?" You'll avoid the question, of course. In any case, I'm far from new to the lies conservatives tell themselves about "small government," but i'm afraid that sooner or later, reality will smack you in the face, and you'll be able to see how little the conservative program actually values government nonintervention. Funny how you claim I'm ignorant, when I've been schooling you on your own ideology this whole time. The simple fact is that the nazis were not, and never will be, socialists. I've proven it so many ways, and you haven't even blessed me with an honest response. No amount of denying will change the facts here, child. They were far right conservative anti-socialists, because they advocated for private control of the means of production, despising social and public control far more than even you. Honest debate is, honestly, what i've done. I know you can't stand that, I know you feel the need to paint me as some dishonest, ideologically driven figure, but assertions do not make facts. The word projection is thrown around a lot, but in all this time, all i've done is disprove your assertions, while you rant and rave in favor of your ideology. That's why, whenever you try to deflect to ideological attacks against socialism, I am sure to answer your questions, but also remind you of the actual topic of the conversation. Again, how am I doing "Damage control" for socialism? Is that what you call history? You assert that I don't answer anything, again, how much are you willing to bet on that assertion? You failed to answer last time, and I can only assume it's because you know that statement is false. Child, what I'm "cut and pasting' is actual citation, correct history, and though you seem to have a problem with it, you haven't provided any good reason that any of it is false beyond your own hurt feelings. Here you assert that the entire premise of socialism requires not believing in state control/strong government, even though you previously said that those definitions of socialism are uncontested. Please keep a straight story. In any case, again, why do you keep deflecting to attacks against socialism? Do you expect me to defend an ideology I do not hold? I would simply point out that, historically, socialist advocacy has resulted in systems far from dictatorship many times, and often they were the victims of dictatorships of conservatism, repressing their free speech. That's why people keep advocating for socialism, after all, because they can sense that conservatives know that socialists say things that disprove the conservative narrative. Conservatives need to pretend that nobody would follow socialism if they weren't forced to, to cover up for the fact that conservative policy by definition goes against free human nature and must be violently enforced, while more and more people call for capitalist reforms that you call "Socialist." And once again, predictably, you close it off with a string of insults that you've likely seen in at least 20 other places. Originality isn't your strong suit. I simply assert historical fact. You can't even admit when you're insulting someone. You do nothing but defend the ideologies you claim to condemn and spend hours defending people whose very existence proves you wrong, and yet, you can't even break out of your echo chamber for long enough to come up with a good insult. Who is "the rest of us," champ? I don't see anyone here but you and I. Are you really that scared to just... be an individual?
    1
  120.  @AverageAlien  Oh my god, you're still bragging about imaginary arguments? Kid, whenever you get into an argument with anyone, you always end up running away after failing to make a single point. I've never even seen you make an argument, and you've spent hours spamming me. You've never destroyed an argument, they destroy you, with ease :)
    1
  121.  @AverageAlien  Lmao, triggered because you know how shitty your arguments are? Dude, this is just pathetic.
    1
  122.  @AverageAlien  Nah, child, you ran away from my arguments after I proved you wrong time and time again, so you could brag to random people to get over the shame of the arguments you lost. Sorry you can't accept reality.
    1
  123.  @AverageAlien  Sorry I destroyed your reality-denying arguments easily. Does it make you mad?
    1
  124.  @AverageAlien  Child I know, you're insecure about the fact that it was so easy to utterly destroy your silly little assertions. You can cry abut it all you want, but I not only argued, I won, and you ran.
    1
  125.  @AverageAlien  Oh, child. Still coping with your defeat? Sorry you never made a valid point, or even attempted to do so, in the entire time I was wiping the floor with your nonsense. You lost badly - you admitted it.
    1
  126.  @AverageAlien  Awww, still crying because I easily pulverized your arguments and wiped the floor with you, a fact you admitted to? I not only had arguments, but presented them, and you ran away because you couldn't refute them. I destroyed your pitiful attempts at deflection. Sorry I was able to disprove you and the video in kind, but facts don't care about your feelings.
    1
  127.  @AverageAlien  Where was it demolished? Hm? Child, you don't even know my worldview, and all you've done is throw childish insults at me while running away from every actual argument, either because you know you'll lose, or you already lost. I know you can't handle the fact that your entire narrative was utterly annihilated right in front of you, and you're seething because you know you aren't educated enough to refute a single word I say. You can't handle how easy it was to demolish your silly little claims, can you?
    1
  128.  @AverageAlien  Funny how you seem to be so confident, and yet you don't even know what my arguments were. Nah, child, we both know the truth. You're unable to cope with the fact that I wiped the floor with the shattered pieces of your utterly destroyed narrative. So you have to pretend that there are other people here, people who somehow didn't witness your humiliating, total defeat and embarrassing loss. Who is "everyone," child? Seems to just be you, crying, and throwing insecure insults. I'm not a socialist, and we both know you have nothing left but to cry like a toddler, and run away.
    1
  129.  @AverageAlien  And what is that worldview, that was apparently "pissed on?" Funny thing is, despite ranting and raving about you destroying it and definitely not running away like a coward (the thing you actually did) you're unable to even name the worldview that you supposedly so effortlessly countered. I know it must be hard, seeing this narrative that you can't think outside of be so easily ground to dust with no question, but you have to learn to cope with it. Or at least come up with better insults, at any rate. Complaining about estrogen? Come on man, is this 2016? I'm sorry that, no matter the objective facts I used to utterly annihilate your pro-fascist position, you're still unable to wake up from the lies you've told yourself. After your narrative was completely and utterly shat on by tens of people, and you ran away multiple times, you had to create a new reality where none of this ever happened, to justify your shame. You just can't cope with how wrong you are, and so you've decided to just pretend that you aren't, despite both of us deeply knowing that this isn't the case. Sorry your denialism isn't working for you. Cope.
    1
  130.  @nukclear2741  Read the person I'm replying to. Despite the fact that their whole response is pointless, over-the-top insults, you decided to reply to me. Ignoring, of course, the amount of debate and arguments I've presented, that you can't respond to. I have more of a place here than you and your buds, utterly lacking in debate and arguments. Yall hate those who dare debate, because you have no counters.
    1
  131.  @luxiusilluminus2844  Man, I'll never get over the fact that you guys are so insecure in your ideology that you essentially have to make up reasons why all the natural end results of what you advocate for somehow isn't your fault. Sorry that youtube is is a private capitalist company. I don't think there's much you can do about that one bud.
    1
  132.  @luxiusilluminus2844  Perhaps one day you'll take something resembling a course in basic economics - to address your level of ignorance, I would even be happy with some self-administered research. Sadly, you seem too ideologically attached to your lack of knowledge to ever consider either of those things. "How is youtube private if I can literally buy its shares?" How is it not? After all, one of the greatest innovations of capitalism has been the notion that individuals can invest, not just in products but in producers themselves, a notion that even the most libertarian of economists (especially them, I would say) will proudly attest to this very notion being responsible for the vast majority of modern capitalist-gained prosperity. So how exactly does this voluntary contractual exchange of currency for goods, services, and assurances not qualify as the most private-capitalist thing out there? I think you're confusing "private" as in private property, and "private" as in privately traded. A very large percentage of private companies are publicly traded. And clearly you have not internalized TIK's "lesson" here, as you appear to be getting his definition of the state all wrong. You sit here, in the comments section of a youtube video that brags about opposing the vast majority of historians and economists on this issue, and seem to think I'm the one that needs to do research? Child, there's a reason TIK despises university, and it's because he's well aware any formal or in-depth research on the subject reveals his statements to be utter nonsense. Your only economic education appears to be a video, here, that you haven't even watched and have no interest in critically examining. You would prefer to hurl insults and assumptions because, frankly put, it's the only way one can actually argue your position. Anything else would reveal it as the hollow drivel that it is. Why does "becoming reasonable" in your eyes mean accepting unsubstantiated and ideological narratives that have been and continue to be utterly repudiated by the entire field they attempt to place themselves in? Is your version of "education" just keeping up with whatever you happen to believe at the current moment, and anything else must simply be a mark of ignorance? You seem to put little effort into your assertions and even less into the painfully flawed thoughts behind them. Perhaps most insulting is that you attempt to recommend a number of books which, firstly speaking would be a terrible slipshod and scatterbrained introduction to economics, but most importantly utterly repudiate your point and credibility alike. I suppose you just have to assume everyone but you is ignorant, but why exactly would you recommend Adam Smith to me if you believed investment took companies out of the private realm, and that socialism was some form of malignant evil? Why would you attempt to decry fascism and socialism as two parts of the same "basket," and then cite Mises, a thinker well known for praising fascist movements for rebuking socialism? Further, why cite Mises along with Friedman (who he called a socialist) and Keynes. (who he also called a socialist, as well as marxist, fascist, the list goes on.) I would forgive you if it seemed like you were trying to provide a wide swathe of ideas to portray the diversity of opinion in the field, but as I said these would be horrible works to attempt to introduce someone to the subject through, and they neglect huge economic movements and ideologies that, no matter your agreement, warrant study and understanding. Your "attempt" here is far from genuine - you project your ignorance outwards and try to see yourself as a white knight coming to save others from economic illiteracy, rather than a pompous child who can only recite books from a list of pre-approved talking points. You attempt to correct other's "mistakes" while doing nothing but making a fool of yourself, and insult them on the basis of them essentially just not agreeing with you. Hell, even the people who just say "read Sowell!" usually do a better job of the act than you. You just seem to think that hurling the almighty name of Smith will convert all those dirty commies into upstanding industrial oil barons. Come back when you get some real world experience, your resume isn't exactly as full as I tend to prefer for these conversations.
    1
  133.  @luxiusilluminus2844  I must say, I find it immensely funny that your response to me pointing out how poor your book choice was... is to pretend I must not have read the books. It's almost as if your arguments require the ignorance of your opponents, and when none can be found, you must simply pretend it's there. After all, in trying to say I "haven't read the books," you pull arguments from the books in question that I've made to you - almost as though you're merely trying to deflect points you cannot disprove. In any case, my recommendation stands. Take an economics course, please. You only harm your own credibility by refusing to do so. Again, one must question if you're consciously disagreeing with the only education on this subject you seem to have (TIK videos) or if you're simply ignorant of the contents of them, as TIK has made abundantly clear that he views Youtube as a public enterprise. I must say though, the notion you believe in, that publicly owned companies can own, direct, and control private companies, is a perfectly ripe bit of argument-defeating hypocrisy I honestly can say I was not expecting. In any case, like it or not, Alphabet is a private company. Again, please take a basic course on economics. "Privately traded" and "Privately owned" are not synonymous. Just as a privately owned venue can be a public gathering space, and a state-owned building can have private offices, publicly traded companies are privately owned. According to the Cornell school of law, private property is defined as "...the ownership of property by private parties - essentially anyone or anything other than the government. " Cambridge dictionary defines it as "Something, especially land or buildings, that belongs to a particular person or company, rather than to a government." Dictionary dot com defines it as "land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use." A private company that "goes public" is still privately owned, as in it is an example of private property. Now, both the actual definitions of public ("A public corporation is a company whose shares are listed to be traded on a public market, such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). When a company goes public, it will undertake its initial public offering (IPO) after submitting Form S-1 (which is a registration statement) to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). ") and private ("A private company is a business entity whose securities do not trade on public markets. Compare to public company. Private companies can be structured as sole proprietorships, partnerships or corporations, and can range in size from a single owner to international enterprises") companies both qualify under private property, as opposed to public property. ("Public property refers to property owned by the government (or its agency), rather than by a private individual or a company.") Publicly traded companies are privately owned, not privately held. Words have different meanings, and just as a public gathering does not mean a state-owned gathering, a "publicly traded company" is an example of private property which monetizes contractual ownership. As capitalist as it gets. Sadly for you, the notion that publicly traded companies are privately owned is basic economic fact, which is part of why I can't take your attempted recommendations seriously., and why your "even the most libertarian of economists will agree" copy-paste is so funny. One must wonder why you constantly bother both defending and attempting to cite figures which regularly prove you wrong. I also must wonder if you've actually watched the video above, as if you had, you'd note that TIK's definition of both public and private differ greatly from yours. My question with all these sorts of definitional games is how one can then advocate for capitalism, given that the vast majority of capitalist successes would qualify as another system entirely under this definition. No, actually, that isn't what I've doing. If it was, you'd have far less to reply to here. What I've been doing is pointing out the flaws with your arguments and attitudes alike, and noting your own extreme reaction to a relatively mild response. You feel the need to insult me ("...a subject you do not comprehend at all.") because the contents of your arguments don't actually stand on their own two feet, and require a healthy dose of deflection and ad hominem to keep any veneer of respectability. If someone supposedly so ignorant of the field can so easily dismantle your position, what exactly does that say about your position? Ah, brilliant. Even something TIK has admitted must now be dismissed. And your reasoning for doing so? Well, nothing less that unsubstantiated anecdotes. Truly, I'm cowering in fear. In any case, coming back to reality, one must conclude that the argument is long since settled, and not in the favor of the narrative you'd like to spread. The evidence has been presented, the detractors have shot their shot and failed one after the other, and the denialists are forced to watch in horror as the very people they claim to have no relation to continually march under their banner and their ideology. The field of history is long since settled on this debate, but the battle continues to be raged by a small group of ideologues, holding out against enemies that have long since moved on.
    1
  134. 2 And yet, that is what you stand before me doing, exactly. Not only trying to replace history according to your beliefs, but projecting those beliefs and definitions onto others, rewriting belief through your false narrative of history. To call it bias would be the understatement of the century - bias implies a lean, whereas you've pitched yourself straight over the edge. See, for example, your unprovoked mention of "post modernism" (a philosophical belief which literally defines itself through constant criticism) which you attempt to use as some sort of evidence that you're in favor of criticism and critical examination, proving that you just have no idea what words you're using and why. I'm not sure you know what postmodernism is, and if you did, why do you think that opposing it makes you more in favor of the very thing it advances? It's like saying "I can't believe you'd accuse me of x, as I am a person staunchly against starvation, and thus in favor of people never eating!" without a hint of irony, it's absurd. In any case, you need to learn to emotionally divorce yourself from your arguments, it's embarrassing. I pointed out that your listed book recommendations are a 'terrible slipshod and scatterbrained introduction to economics' because, frankly speaking, they are. I don't even disagree with many of the writers you named, the issue is that the selection of books you gave is full of contradictory, history-contextual works that provide a poor basis of a fostering understanding of modern economics. It would be like attempting to teach someone American history and only recommending around 10 president's autobiographies - far from nothing, but in terms of historical context they're severely lacking, and in terms of the contents of the book they're not the best for a first lesson in the field. None of these are the "fundamentals," they're important works that merit full study with an established foundation of economic knowledge. The fact that you emotionally lash out at this tells me I was likely right on the mark when I pointed out that you hadn't actually read one of them, which is why said recommendations repudiate your point - the economic knowledge found in these texts is not the same "knowledge" you're attempting to argue from. Why are you so dead-set on claiming I haven't read any of these, when I was able to quickly and easily provide knowledge of the views and creators of them in a manner you were unable to refute? It seems like you can't handle people being educated on a subject and still disagreeing with you. Child, you can hardly claim "You don't know what X means" and instantly follow that line up with "The popular understanding of X is [exactly what I said." Both in common usage, dictionary definitions, and economic texts the word "investment" is used to represent finance and participation in the stock market. Now, while "investment" (as well as most economic/philosophical terms) does have multiple definitions or usages within different fields, none of those definitions are individually incorrect, but simply must be understood within the context of the person using them. The fact that you presented an alternative definition of investment and attempted to claim that my not exclusively adhering to it was a sign of ignorance, before directly proving that the usage I presented was common correct usage, is proof that you genuinely don't have a clue about economic terminology. How is me using a term according to the popular financial usage "not understanding it?" In any case, I'm sorry, your statements are nonsense. Like it or not, you don't appear to know the first thing about economics, you don't appear to know how to refute my points, and you don't appear to be willing to try. You can insult me all you want, but it doesn't make the facts go away. Also, if "anyone today" thought socialism didn't work than we wouldn't be having this conversation, and why would you cite a far-right anti-socialist (who was specifically praised as such, might I add) to attempt to make that point? How odd. Now, if you wouldn't mind, read my words back to me? After all, you don't seem to understand what I said. "'Why would you attempt to decry fascism and socialism as two parts of the same "basket," and then cite Mises, a thinker well known for praising fascist movements for rebuking socialism?" Note I did not say that Mises "promoted" fascism, simply that he praised it as a bulwark against socialism, which he did. What else would you call the quote you proudly cited - "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." One does not need to praise fascism above all other ideologies, or personally support fascism in all aspects, to have praised fascism as a bulwark against socialism, which again, he did. Oh, it's absolutely true that he personally didn't approve of fascism (it was mainly the violent suppression of dissent that he claimed to oppose) but he continually put it on the same "side" as his own ideology, and noted that said suppression was ultimately a good thing against what he saw as a far worse evil. Again, you've emotionally invested yourself to the point of ignoring my argument - Mises wasn't a gung-ho fascist, but he was absolutely a person that (revealingly) praised fascism for opposing socialism... and yet you cite him as evidence that they're one and the same. In fact, later in the same chapter of his book Liberalism, he said this -" For Fascism does nothing to combat [socialism] except to suppress socialist ideas and to persecute the people who spread them." How exactly can one claim fascism is in the same basket as socialism, and yet in attempting to prove so, cite a man who was pretty honest about their hostility towards eachother? Further, while Mises' position within the austro-fascist Dolfuss party is certainly its own debate, it's quite silly to claim that this was mandatory and to ignore that he was no mere member, he was the head of party economics and a personal friend of the fascist dictatory in charge, who only fled when the threat of nazism grew unbearable. And sure, you didn't present a monolithic group of economists, but you didn't deliver a vast swathe either. You delivered a small sampling of a specific branch of economic as proof of a claim that the majority of them rejected. It's a horrible foundation for introducing one to economics, because these figures spent more time hating eachother than contributing to their own fields in most cases. If this is the vitriol and deflection that one can expect from your "Genuine" comments, I can hardly stand to think about what a more bad-faith attempt from you would be. For your own sanity, consider trying to argue from reason as opposed to emotion next time, and for the love of all that is holy, at least attempt to get a basic education in economic, debate, and textual analysis. It'll do you wonders.
    1
  135. Farewell, old friend. May you grow up into a nice smart lad who looks back at these days and cringes.
    1
  136.  @TheImperatorKnight  mate, you've literally admitted that you don't know the correct definition of Socialism, and in doing so have proven that the only one lying about Socialist ideas is you. Literally. Your only excuse to your fake definition is saying that "there is no real definition" which is the silliest response I've ever heard. You've already admitted you're wrong.
    1
  137. They dont
    1
  138.  @the99throgue25  socialists know it far better than TIK
    1
  139.  @the99throgue25  You can't even use the right "there," why would I bother with your anecdotal evidence? The vast majority of socialists I have talked to have given me the same basic definition. Maybe your problem is that you keep calling random people socialists and then getting surprised when they aren't, rather than actually listen to socialists explain their points.
    1
  140.  @the99throgue25  I care because for a person who seems to be assuming they know a hell of a lot more about an ideology than the people who believe in it, you can't even take the time to make sure you have proper grammar on a comment. It takes like three seconds. That just tells me you don't really care about this, and want to spread your misinformation without a second thought. But, to reiterate - anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit, especially when it seems I can just counter it with my own anecdote. Oh yeah, and most of the comments criticizing TIK are like... right? So maybe its not that big of a thing to care about then. If you're going to be wrong, at least do it well.
    1
  141.  @the99throgue25  Ah, so now you're using the word triggered. And still, the wrong form of your. And again, I don't know how many times we need to go over this, but anecdotal evidence... isn't evidence. You can't just will something into existence, and you as an anonymous internet user can't really just say something with no backing and expect me to believe it. But no, go ahead. Give me some examples, prove yourself right, or at least make a case for it.
    1
  142.  @the99throgue25  Ok fair enough, I wouldn't expect to have to do that either, but you kind of have to understand we're really just measuring anecdotes at this point.
    1
  143.  @the99throgue25  Well that's... something. Not a good understanding it seems but whatever.
    1
  144.  @the99throgue25  it seems so.
    1
  145.  @TheImperatorKnight  yes and yet you keep trusting in that illusion
    1
  146.  @SCHMALLZZZ  Germany was Fascist, not at all Socialist. This is a well known fact, and denying it will do you no help. They not only didn't care about progressing to communism, but cared even less about setting up a Socialist state. They took power away from the workers, they didn't grant any. The utterly ahistorical idea that the only difference between the two is just their intentions is extremely stupid. The Nazis were right wing, fascists, social Darwinists, traditionalists, ect. The Soviets were none of those things. Calling the Nazis Socialists, but worse, the exact same as the Soviets, is unwarranted and false historical revisionism at its finest.
    1
  147.  @SnacksLP  yes, that would be right. good job.
    1
  148.  @SnacksLP  they both had Fascism, the Nazis just called their Fascism a different thing
    1
  149.  @SnacksLP  Nazism is the continuation of fascism, not a different thing, and they didn't care about the "bourgeoisie," nor did they use the term. They both cared about the same thing and heavily influenced each other, while not exactly the same they were remarkably similar. Fascist philosophy, both of the nazis and the italians, came from people like Julius Evola, though you would be right in saying that the nazis did take strategies from conservative americans at the time. But they were, essentially, very similar.
    1
  150.  @SnacksLP  Oh, I get it. You're a historical revisionist, a denailist, and you want to rewrite terms. The fascists and the nazis were essentially the same faction, and while they disagreed, they agreed on far more. That notion is embodied by the conservatives of today perfectly, and thanks for pointing that out. And yes, it was the conservatives democrats of that day and the conservative KKK they loved. The dems in those days were southern, white, right wing, libertarian, conservative, pro business, religious, ect. They were conservatives. But thank you for pointing out that the ideological descendants of american conservatives (and the people who still agree with them the most) are the nazis.
    1
  151.  @SnacksLP  considering the two actually actively influenced eachother and actually seemed to put in place similar policies, not really. And of course they didn't like the Italians, but that was a race thing. And yes, it's well documented that the KKK was made by conservatives, as was Jim Crowe, and it was conservatives like the na,is that learned the most from it, while conservatives in America defended and implemented the policies. This is a pretty well known historical fact, and really, you should have known this by now.
    1
  152.  @SnacksLP  conservatives did all they could to keep segregation, and before that, slavery, in effect and fully legal. It was the progressives of the time that outlawed those things
    1
  153. ​ @SnacksLP  Of course conservatives existed before the issue of abolishing slavery, they were the ones keeping slaves. It is hilarious though, to realize how truly deluded you are. Did you really think that conservatives just... popped into existence the first time someone asked "should be abolish slavery,?" They weren't even the abolitionists, at the time conservatives were the democrats. Although at least you're right on the bills. I love how you have to ignore the guardian article, because we both know what it says. It proves not only that liberals were far more likely to vote for the bill, but that southern republicans (the ones that still exist today) despised the bill and refused to vote for it, while liberals in the north voted for it overwhelmingly. Let's see those quotes you left out. "Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster." "You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties." "Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did. The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography." So that's your lie dead. You also lie in this very article. 96% of republicans voted for it, the vast majority of which were liberal, not conservative. After all, the republican party at one point was chock full of socialists. The democrats at the time were the southern, libertarian, white, religious crowd and were especially conservative. And thanks again for showing us how it was the conservative dems who wanted to keep their slaves so badly I have no idea where you got your information, but mine is literally from the government records on senate votes, and studies on their political positions. Oh yeah, and the democrat filibuster leader became a republican
    1
  154.  @SnacksLP  Yeah, i'm sorry, but i'm fully within my right to point out some of your nonsense here. I'm fine with keeping things civil, but you literally discounted a source that proves you wrong with no real reason, and i'm not just accepting that.
    1
  155.  @SnacksLP  The issue is that you're not listening at all, and maintain your ideas are true even when proven false, as if by sticking your head in the sand you hope to prove anything. The regionality absolutely does matter, because back then the parties were sectional. The south was right wing, and the north was left wing, and that has never changed. That's why the northern republicans and northern dems voted the same, and the southern dems and southern republicans voted the same. Politics in this time was determined by region, not party name, and it stayed that way pretty much up until the 80s. This is basic american history. You also act as if "conservatives" and "democrats" are opposites. No, you must remember, they were literally the same group at that time, as the south was the conservative area, and the dems were the party of the south. As the study the article mentioned proved, the dems were far more conservatives. The actual conservatives were voting against abolition and civil rights. The reason it was "0% for the conservative democrats" was literally because there weren't many to vote on it at all. We had literally just won a war and kicked them out of our government as punishment. Again, basic american history. They didn't, that's the important part. Conservatives did keep slaves, and votd to maintain their right to do so. They didn't abolish it, those were the liberals at the time. Need I remind you that the republican party used to have socialists in it? And that the leaders of the Civil Rights movement were leftists, with MLK being a socialist, and Malcolm X being a communist? You're literally denying all of american history and the evidence set in front of you, just by burying your head in the sand and trying to pretend it doesn't exist.
    1
  156.  @SnacksLP  I'm sorry, are you perhaps deaf? How many times do I need to tell you that the republicans were not the right wing conservative party at this time?
    1
  157.  @SnacksLP  there is no solid "when," the shift of parties on ideological issues is a constant one that never actually ends. Unless you think the modern American right supports Socialism?
    1
  158.  @SnacksLP   @SnacksLP  the modern right in America, as you are doing, call anyone to the left of Reagan a Socialist. They are absolutely not supporting Socialist policies. Your point as well is wrong, the conservatives of the past were objectively the slavers and those fighting for the ability to keep slaves, while the liberals were calling for the regulation of the economy, in terms of outlawing slavery. The Dems of the past were the conservatives. The problem is of course that republicans want to ignore the history of conservatism and deflect their own faults onto others, as you are now doing. Trump is literally repealing minority rights, and this is somehow the Dems fault? The idea of dependance on the state was literally a talking point used by pro slavery folks to dissuade abolition. Conservatives pretend not to see race (while being far more racist on average, belonging to a 93% white party, and committing far more hate crimes) because they don't care about equality, just like they have not cared about it historically And I've shown you change, again and and again. The republicans used to be the liberals, they used to have Socialists in their party, they were the party of taxation and public projects and regulation. This is basic stuff
    1
  159.  @SnacksLP  both? They were both conservatives and slavery's, this isn't really that hard to go into. The ideology at that time was that slavery was protected by the Constitution and was ok, so conservatives didn't want the government intruding on their "property."
    1
  160.  @SnacksLP  ...what? The democratic party absolutely existed, they were the conservative party of the time. What are you on? Is your only strategy now to make up random nonsense and then try to pin it on me?
    1
  161.  @SnacksLP  They. Were. Both. The dems at the time were the conservative party, as well as quite obviously the party that was the southernmost party, and thus the slavers. Again, basic historical context. You should know all of this already.
    1
  162.  @SnacksLP  ...what. That literally makes no sense. How does a party's political leanings imply it doesn't exist? The dems existed, and they were conservatives. It's really as simple as that. The party was formed as a southern, conservative party. Explain how them being conservative implied the party wasn't formed yet, because that's utter nonsense.
    1
  163.  @SnacksLP  Explain it then. You literally have no basis for that assumption, you're literally just saying a conservative democratic party cannot exist, which is nonsense, because we have empirical evidence of the exact opposite. You know that isn't what I meant, and there is no rational way you could get that from my words. So explain yourself.
    1
  164.  @SnacksLP  Yeah, no. There is no logic to your statements, because at this point, you're making things up. I never said "both the democratic party and the conservative party were slavers," because that would be a redundancy, they are both the same party. I literally not once said that. Then, I said the dems were the conservative party both in party and in behavior, which lines up with my previous statements of saying the dems were the conservatives. Your fabrication of some other conservative party has no basis in what I said, and even then,you realize multiple groups can be conservative, and that doesn't cancel them out? That wasn't the case here, but still.worth pointing out. Afterwards I reiterated that they were both the conservative party generally, and the conservative party in behavior. Neither of those statements would cause said party to literally not exist. Your entire argument relies on fabricating a statement I never made, and then applying some batshit crazy "logic" that you can't even fully explain to try to make it sound like the conservative democratic party would just cancel itself out. The contradiction is on your end of interpretation here, not on my end of oration.
    1
  165.  @SnacksLP  The conservative party then was the democrats, which was shown by the southern democrats post-switch still keeping to their conservative roots.
    1
  166.  @bobhabib7662  No, child. All of that is false.
    1
  167.  @bobhabib7662  Child, what are you even talking about? Are you apologizing for the conservative KKK again?
    1
  168.  @SnacksLP  How is that at all confusing? It's pretty basic to conceptualize. The conservatives did stay conservatives, they just migrated to a different party that better reflected their conservative beliefs, from democrat to republican. The democratic party, on the other hand, decided to stop leaning into conservative beliefs, and allowed the republican party to do that. The very fact that the historical republican party was so deeply associated with liberalism and even leftism proves that there was an ideological switch, and the fact that the values of the south have stayed consistent despite superficial party changes proves that it is the southern conservatives that led this change.
    1
  169.  @bobhabib7662  There's no getting out of it, child. The right owns nazism, fascism, the KKK, and all those other authoritarian conservative groups.
    1
  170.  @bobhabib7662  No, child. Fascism is, of course, antithetical to socialism, to accept fascism means not only rejecting fascist ideological principles, but also the very basis of socialism, the moral assumptions that justify it as well. Do you think that empowering wealthy private individuals and adhering to conservative views is a socialist concept? Despite the availability of facts proving you wrong, you still try to get out of it. You're claiming that the socialists "own" ideologies that are proudly spread, accepted, and created by the right. You're claiming that the socialists "own" ideologies that proudly march for conservatism, then and now. No, child, the socialists don't own the far right ideologies of fascism and nazism, they reject them. They are not all heads of "the same socialist dragon," unless you would like to declare that socialism can be private and conservative. Your conspiracies have no place in actual discussion, especially given how far off the mark you always seem to be.
    1
  171.  @bobhabib7662  It's honestly hilarious to watch conservatives dance and twist themselves into a corner when the history of their ideology is brought up. They really will lie about anything, create concepts out of thin air, call anyone a socialist, just to deny their history of authoritarianism and bigotry. Child, the KKK is literally a conservative organization, that pushes conservative social views, and supports conservative politicians. I mean, the organization literally goes around yelling for guns, trying to kick out immigrants, crying about supposed conspiracies to destroy america and erase out traditions, they're just american conservatives but a bit more honest with themselves. Child, what are you even talking about? "Elitism?" You're throwing out words you don't understand to make a point it doesn't even seem like you believe in. Of course leftists can divorce the concept of "elitism" from their ideological beliefs, especially given that most outright reject it, while the right takes it as a given, a foundational part of their moral philosophy. I have no idea what you are trying to redefine this term to mean, or why you're tying it to leftism, but you're just going to have to cope with the conservatism of the KKK, and their similarly right wing authoritarian allies. Now, we know you know nothing about socialism, and you were probably wholly unaware that mindless obedience to some random state is antithetical to even the definition of socialism, but that doesn't matter to you, does it? To you, socialism is a catch-all term for anything you find yourself claiming to disagree with, regardless of how similar you might be to it, and once you've slapped the label socialism on, you are able to criticize socialism using whatever made up arguments you want, given your refusal to define it. I mean hell, you can't even define authoritarianism, as individual superiority is not a moral argument for the majority of historical authoritarian regimes, and yet you apply it to random things you don't like. I think what you mean is, "I get confused when socialists tell me that my strawmen aren't accurate, and so I just claim they're trying to deny advocating for things... that they've never advocated for." I'm not sure you even know the definition of socialism, and you certainly have no clue what socialists "live by." My guess is that you made up concepts you think fit both of those things, and you can't realize that said concepts have no justification in reality.
    1
  172. Because it wasn't, and TIK has already admitted he was wrong on that front.
    1
  173.  @Belkak021  Which video he addresses him being wrong? He does it in the comments of most of those videos, where he posts and spams copy-pasted responses that contradict his original point, which he said he threw away to make this "new" point.
    1
  174.  @Belkak021  My point was that in the comments section he literally said, in his own words, that he was getting rid of a prior point he made on the subject, which means he was admitting he was wrong there. That was how I classified that response. You can disagree sure, but when someone makes a point, and then openly revokes that point later in favor of another one, i tend to call it an admission of being wrong on that thing.
    1
  175.  @bobhabib7662  But they weren't. The nazis, on every possible basis, denied socialism as an inspiration, a goal, an alliance, everything. Socialism is antithetical to nazism, so yes, TIK has made numerous false claims.
    1
  176.  @thegreathadoken6808  The nazis were neither socialists nor marxists, though TIK is unable to define either. I doubt he's capable of humility, even after being proven wrong so many times he doesn't even consider reevaluating his position.
    1
  177.  @nukclear2741  Wow, child, amazing how easily you lie.
    1
  178.  @nukclear2741  Hitler openly opposed the inclusion of the term "Socialism" into the party title, voiced his concern with the title and the way their ideologies opposed eachother multiple times, purged those that added the word socialism into the party title, and attempted to redefine the term socialism to have nothing to do with any previous or ongoing socialist ideologies or movements, but that rather it was a traditionalist, right wing, nationalistic pro-private system. That's what he means when he said "socialist..." or did you ignorantly assume he used your definition? As for "German businessmen during the Nazi regime studied the soviet economy to learn about the Nazi economy," this is a paraphrasing of a point that was false when TIK tried to present it. Economists and businessmen compare and contrast different economies all the time, the economy in question being compared was the NEP... the openly capitalist rapid-industrialization program that the soviets hated, and later abolished when it was no longer needed. You're openly saying that the best way for german businessmen to understand their own economy was by observing a pro-private, wartime economy that leftists hated and that hitler saw as an absolute goal.
    1
  179.  @darklelouchg8505  I’m not sure how you ignore that the capitalists are welcomed into and defended by the state. It’s hard to claim that it’s made impossible by the states monopoly on violence, when the state in question is made by, for, and up of private owners. It’s a bit like saying the states of America having a unified nuclear arsenal isn’t possible because most of those missiles are only technically kept in a few states, thus ignoring how they’re used and what they’re actually organized under. Under said system, the separation you’re implying just does not exist in the way you assume. Besides that, I’d recommend not making the classic error of assuming a unified fascist theory, much less one absurdly defined by economics rather than social or cultural viewpoints.
    1