Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Debunked: "Socialism Has Never Worked"" video.

jean-louis pech: "staline and mao were Right Wing Authoritarianist , folllowing politic psychologists. Their regimes were about power of one strong leader, a socail hierarchy with an elite and the workers under, etc... then they fit the definition of right wing." You can't even resolve your own cognitive dissonance. According to your logic every left winger that takes power becomes a right winger. -->Because they claim to be fighting to end class war and stuff. Just like all Communists do. How about just incompetent left wing liars holding illegitimate power? Does that blow your mind? "Authoritarianism is strongly linked to conservatism, nationalists, reactionnaries, etc... LOL. Left wing idiots "strongly link" conservatism and so forth to other ugly sounding ideas. " it is why psychologist label it Right Wing Authoritariansm." No, authoritarianism is not a label from "psychology" it is philosophical paradigm. And it basically means the rulers wield unchecked power. The UK is more "authoritarian" than the USA simply because the US Constitution restricts all branches of government in clear ways and the people can use the courts to check bad "authorities" if legislators fail to check the executive actions. If you understand what the term means you understand that the USA is the least authoritarian sovereign to ever exist. 'And the psychology linked to stalinism, maoism, etc.. are very different from the psychology driving the historics socialism we can see in the video.' Nonsense. Utter nonsense. When socialists take power and defame your own delusions you simply assign them to "right wing." That's a false binary. Leftists with power are still leftists unless they repent from their radical "socialist" doctrines. And collectivism is inherently authoritarian and elitist. Collectivism is putting the public on a "social justice bus" or "train" rather than letting them organize their own transport. So who pays for it and who drives it? Robots? No. Elites. Rulers. People you then call "right wing." So to you left wingers are the cry babies and right wingers are people that left wingers put in power. As if those are the only choices.
3
Indonesia America "Socialism is a national policy suggestion." No, it's not. "Free healthcare and education are socialist policies they are what you are arguing against." No, those are broad ideas under the rubric of "socialism." We already have free education for everyone and free healthcare based on need. You just don't know what you're talking about.
2
"You don't say how I have moved the goalposts." Be serious. The video is about redefining what "socialism" means. So then when convenient to your incoherent logic you say this or that is or isn't socialism based on your desired outcomes. You want "socialism" and you don't want to describe what it is other than free stuff that you think "makes sense" if "government" owns and provides it. But when you want to look for precedents to "prove" that your demands are realistic you look at other examples that don't meet your own demands. Basically you need to move to wherever you think they are doing it right because you have no idea what you're talking about or how to reproduce successful elements of any given project or paradigm that you think you favor. IOW, you're just an incoherent critic. You're not a competent creator. "When you claim socialism is not a national policy suggestion (which is obviously false)" LOL. No, "seizing means of production for the Commanding Heights of the nation's macroeconomy" is a very rough policy suggestion/framework (like Lenin's NEP). You're not even that coherent! "I'm trying to stick to the points of discussion. Are you trying to gaslight me or something?" I'm exposing the fact that you have already been Gaslit.
2
You could not even commit to a single policy decision: You want "free for everyone" but have no idea how it's provided! So, according to you, if it's "socialized" does that mean free people are reimbursed (or otherwise guaranteed access and protection when recipients can't pay) when they provide medical goods and services or do you also govern pricing? Or do you outlaw all "private" transactions so that "true socialism" can work its "magic" in "healthcare" and all doctors/providers/supplies must work for the government? Therefore all "private medical transactions" must be outlawed? No patents can be owned privately. That's "true socialism" according to any coherent thinkers. From that point forward no medical professionals can own any property pertaining to their professional duties. The government/public must own all.
2
You don't even understand the difference between theory and reality or demand versus policy suggestion. "I suggest a socialist policy for national policy (for example free education) how is that not a national policy suggestion?" I already gave you examples of each. What is wrong with you? "Free school" is a simple demand. Public funded k-12 in the USA paid for by each State is a policy suggestion. Paying by residential (or "business" or any combination of) property taxes is a policy suggestion. Paying for free college through import tariffs would be another policy suggestion. Any combination of specific suggestions would pertain to policy suggestions. If you can not act directly by taking a coherent suggestion to a specific legislative or authoritative body it can not be a policy suggestion. "Again you try to dodge the fact that you were wrong about the US having free healthcare and the idea that free healthcare is not a socialist policy." What you have demonstrated is that your command of the English language is not even good enough to debate very simple things and yet you think that your feelings are somehow authoritative. No wonder we have so many problems in the world today with people like you wasting everyone's time talking up Free Lunch Utopianism as (fallacious appeals to) "common sense." Indeed you are a Gaslit Snowflake.
2
spaceLem "Of course the Nazis were socialists, it's in the name. And the Democratic Republic of North Korea are true democrats." They're both democratic socialists. They get to define what those terms mean. They're collectivists. Collectivist democracy is about creating a magical Social Justice Council to defend the "demos." This is exactly what FDR did with his "Brain Trusts" paradigm. The only difference is that in relative terms the USA is so fantastically wealthy that FDR's mistakes didn't lead directly to immense suffering that could clearly be blamed on him. You apparently think socialists rejected Darwin. What nonsense. Socialists are zero-sum Social Justice Warriors. They posit that there is no alternative to rival classes, tribes, nations, competing to be at the top. Rather, the only alternative to the status quo is to assemble "Brain Trusts" or "Soviets" or whatever. Socialists all posit that for the "good" group to win they must displace the power of the "oppressor" group. They are NOT inclusive, although they love to lie. Where do you think Newspeak comes from? Socialists are only "inclusive" when they try to line up their cannon fodder (otherwise incorrigible deviates) to aim at the "oppressor class" (or classes). Failure to understand this is a failure to understand which actors in history that do ugly things are in fact doing it based on socialist "class war" theory. They are "resisting oppression" and "fighting for freedom" of phantom oppressors. That is hat the Nazis did. Their economy was destroyed and maniacal Nazism was in fact typical war time socialism dealing with real economic problems that they blamed on real and invented "oppressor" factions. The difference to you is simply whether you accept their incoherent Social Justice narratives. You reject Nazi Social Justice propaganda only because you swallow Soviet/Chinese Social Justice propaganda whole. You don't even bother to chew.
2
Leigh Foulkes "Liberalism = group of people who stand for liberty. That is, they support freedom for the people and not controlling them." Individualist liberals want freedom and liberty to go around doing productive things without gratuitous government coercion. Collectivist liberals like you want "liberty" from "capitalism" or liberty from work, not liberty to work without people pestering you. Therefore you have a polar opposite view of liberty and liberalism. How do I know? "...right winger policies (specially in the US) have always been pro-military, pro-police, pro-oligarchy and etc. " That's a big fail. The US Revolutionary War was literally a "liberal" war or war to be free of "big government." What it did NOT do is create a big government to use "good coercion" to fight all "bad coercion" in one big war. If you then look at the Civil War and understand that as the completion of a careful "war for liberty" then you will understand "the right wing" in the USA. The actual "right wing" in America (Royalist) is Canada. You're presenting leftwing Newspeak as "common sense reality" as if Newspeak is eternal and not replacing anything. That's another thing leftists are noted for. The shorthand term is "lying liars."
2
Brian Hughes "OHM-968692 All 3 of those are pretty conservative in ideology." "Nationalist," Yes, Westphalian nationalism with appropriate treaties to protect everyone's rights to the maximum extent possible. "anti-immigrant," Wrong. "anti-LGBTQ..." Wrong. Conservatives oppose mendacious cults and their dogmas. They reject your stupidity, not "victim classes" as constructed by Utopian idiots. Immigration is controlled by Congress. The laws are enforced by the Executive Branch. Individuals are protected by the courts (Judicial Branch) by referencing Constitutional rulings when people legitimately petition for redress. You are an incoherent, triggered culture warrior that doesn't understand the differences between your cult's dogmas and objective reality.
2
That's because neither doctrine can be applied against any purity tests. In the end socialist is just a family of mendacious arguments for either "labor rights" (under mendacious "class war" doctrines) or for increasing taxes to extract wealth from productive "capitalist" to sate the blame-shifting parasites. Certainly demands for more "socialism" in a rule of law republic that has robust free education and "safety net" programs can not be regarded as good faith politics unless they offer proposals that can be tested before ever more power and wealth is taken from the public at large and given to the "ruling class". Even if they're a "woke" ruling class like the Democratic Party in the USA claims to be.
2
Vantahawk 1 month ago (edited) "Well, most of these changes and adaptions only amount to restrictions of capitalism. In other words in order to make capitalism work for everyone you constantly have to counter it to an extent. That at least seems to imply that there is some systemic imcompatibility at the heart of capitalism, or what Marx called "contradictions". (I'm not a marxist but nonetheless Marx' critique of capitalism was very poignant in that respect.)" No, his critiques of "capitalism" were idiotic. The only critiques that could have been valid would be pointing out how political systems can be abused to oppress poor people. It's the political systems that have flaws, not "capitalism" or "private ownership of capital." All of Marx's critiques have been proved to be ridiculous. All. The idea was that disparity would get worse because of "machines" and "capitalists" owning all of them and forcing "wages" down even further. Upward mobility proves him wrong. All of history proves him wrong. You say that you're not a Marxist but you are a fellow traveler. You're a Gramscian Marxist.
1
Highlighted reply Vantahawk "Indonesia America How exactly have all of Marx' critiques or at least parts thereof been disproven? " Very easy. Private capital is not ipso facto abuse of power. All of his theories hinge on capital as a driving force rather than a tool or mere paradigm. You can see the failures every time someone starts with nothing and accumulates the fruits of his own labor, as wages, and then becomes a "capitalist." In fact the entire "capital versus labor" paradigm is proven patently absurd. The fact that some people don't want to find ways to become successful or that others inherit money does not prove his theories at all that private capital leads to insurmountable political dominance and/or cultural hegemony. All of his critiques can be refuted and resolved with only slightly more informed critiques where underneath the "justice" claims, when they are legitimate, you have abuse of power and economic disparity can become a byproduct. If people are free to earn and grow economically without being "born" in to it then this alone disproves his theories. Looking at "disparity" in view of questions pertaining to the rule of law versus de facto oligarchies and asks what people have done to earn their power, wealth and so forth. And in the age of universal education, you should also ask why people remain disenfranchised when they have so many choices to participate in modern markets. "The monopolisation and cartelisation of privat industries has been a growing problem." You must be joking. The British monarch had "competition law" and the US derived Antitrust law from that. If we do have de facto monopolies today it is only because they are protected by Social Justice elitists under FDR's New Deal paradigms, IOW, socialists asked for it, because that is what economic socialism is, or you have old regimes where the monarch or the state is allowed to have its own "sovereign investment fund" (or some functional equivalent). Rule of law capitalism plus free public education has actually answered all legitimate "socialist" complaints. We only need government food programs because the socialists have done everything possible to destroy churches and private charity, not to mention small farms that used to be able to find free markets to keep themselves and neighbors fed. "And wealth disparity has also been getting worse as capitalism has been deregulated in recent years. " That's an absurd bogey man and begging the question fallacy, not to mention the basis for endless straw man arguments. Nobody said "capitlaism solves disparity." Disparity is natural and good. Nobody has every offered a rational explanation for "the problem with (any discernible) disparity." It's better to explain your "disparity" whinges as envy and your desire to take things that others probably earned because Marx suggested that they didn't in fact earn it so it must be at least partly yours to take (or tax). "Wages have stayed stagnant in the US for a while now while corporations enrich themselves more rapidly than ever." This is more nonsense. Why should wages for X go up? Earnings go up when value/productivity goes up. So you cheat by comparing some fixed or normalized kind of skill, like ditch digging, as if static workers are supposed to be led up to Heaven by the government. If workers want to earn more they need to plan to increase the value of their work. Or accept the status quo. That's life. That is life as it should be. "My main beef is only with private property." You were taught that your envy plus continuous whining leads to Social Justice. You have been lied to.
1
"It's the capitalist part. Because that's exactly when someone stops earning the fruits of their own labor and instead takes those of their workers." This is nonsense. The burden of proof is on you. So, your "capitalism" is theft and theft is against the law, hence disallowed under rule of law capitalism. Your capitalism is already outlawed. All of your other "rebuttals" are derived from this or similar logical fallacies.
1
Vantahawk < More senseless BS > You can't even understand what you read or write. You cited Marx's labor theory as "Settled Science." It is the basis for all of your "justice" appeals. You're completely incorrigible. Capitalism is a construct that puts together observations of disparate real things in to a paradigmatic description and invented "explanatory framework" of an alleged "system" or "thing" that includes things like "theft of wages" and crap like that. It is a paradigm. It is a construct. It is not a real thing. There is no such thing as pure capitalism. You can't understand what is real if you don't know what the stupid inventions are and you peddle nothing but delusional Victicrat inventions. You completely ignored my synthesis where I explained that "socialists" that have legitimate "social justice" concerns can trace that all back to political power and systems and policies that allow abuse to go unchecked. Everyone agrees. Marxists posit that unequal distribution of "capital" (or material) will always lead to inequality of results and hence unequal political power. His theories, like yours, also include stories about alleged historical theft and it is implied that there is no "fair" way for free people to just enter in to (free market) agreements and grow synergistically without "oppressing workers" and so forth. The entire history of the world since Marx published his manifesto has proved that capitalism creates middle class, upwardly mobile populations. That means that the intelligent socialists also value a rule of law framework. OTOH, the idiots talk endlessly like you and try to conflate property rights and "disparity" as deterministic and without remedy other than property seizures until you are sated. Which will be never. Hence pure socialism doesn't exist either. "I am a market socialist, not a Marxist." Market socialists do not suggest that capitalists steal wages from workers simply by taking a profit. You are a braindead Marxist in denial. Most Marxists today deny being Marxists. Chalk it up to your own unresolved cognitive dissonance. The USA has been "market socialist" from the beginning. Every polity with any kind of "social program" is "market socialist." Why do you pester people with your own confusion as if you have something intelligent to say when all you actually do is try to blame your own incompetence and cognitive dissonance on people that patiently try to explain the flaws in your theories to you? While you're at it, why don't you read the Communist Manifesto and find any agenda items that you disagree with. You're just not a revolutionary because you're too much of a coward. The manifesto doesn't call directly for armed revolution. It calls for incrementalism while predicting armed revolutions. Communists don't have to be the revolutionaries to qualify as Communists according to Marx. You don't know anything that is true.
1
Vantahawk: [ Yet another blame-shifting/denial rant ] Moron, I literally corrected you hundreds of times and you can't parse fact from fiction yet somehow you want your (fully debunked) dogmas to be authoritative as you ignore all contrary evidence and even refuse to question whether your own comprehension is flawed as you fail to distinguish between incoherent dogmas and empirical realities. Again, according to the things that you ask for, those things have already been delivered under "rule of law capitalism." Get it? Therefore your whinges and contrary dogmatic declarations are not just useless but destructive to "the greater good." Hence you are an antisocial "market socialist." Or put another way, you actively work against the values that you claim to fight for. All of the other chaotic labeling is irrelevant given how chaotic and destructive your rhetoric and synthesis is.
1
This video would be more honest if it discussed these ideas as "Views of history and Biblical texts that inspired the Jacobin and Marxist Socialists." Why the need to deceive? Calvin was also a "socialist." You want some of that doctrinaire socialism to perfect your soul? No? What about The Greater Good?
1
The right wing was originally those supporting the establishment and the left were the "third estate" or "disenfranchised" folks. However, the "disenfranchised" folks demanded Utopian wealth transfers and totalitarian one-party rule. They were often animated by anti-Christian memes that suggested Christians or the establishment must be driven from power (they didn't envision power-sharing). The reasonable leftists went with republican-style governance and then when it became successful in the USA they were concerned with careful management of what they had created, hence "the (new) right." Democrats that protected slavery were "the right" in their local or State polities but diametrically opposed to the Federalist "right wingers" that were concerned with protecting the Constitution and the values of the American Revolution. It's not a chemical test. It's a logic test.
1
It's simple - and stupid without context. However, if you allow for context it's easy to understand what is being suggested. What really matters to most people are whether the political system protects individual rights or if they suggest a "rights" regime that protects supposed victim classes defined arbitrarily by those in power. German Nazis claimed to be victims "resisting" the Jews, the French, capitalism, and so forth.
1
The "right wing" is inherently inclusive because the "right wing" was created when it allowed another "wing" to enter the chamber. One party rule is not right wing. In modern times, anyone pretending to have a "party" rather than de facto oligarchy is harking back to Divine Rights of Kings while pretending to have "democracy" under lying authoritarian elitist paradigms.
1
"The Nazi's were against capitalism and the bourgeoisie and thought the middle class should own everything, except for the party members of course. They align very well with aspects of both far-right and left policies." The ONLY thing "far right" about German Nazis is nationalism. IOW, that's the POV of people who actually think we're in a "post Westphalian sovereignty" age. Is that what you think? The UN is our overlord? The Nazis were "Communists" in that they shared all Marxist "revelation" except for who would lead the "vanguard" for the "socialist" (dictatorship of the proletariat) phase as "technology" is perfected and "capitalist oppressors" are eliminated.
1
Highlighted reply Joseph Heston "Well go tell your boss that his breath stinks, and see that you still have a job. Yes, capitalism is totalitarian." This is the worst kind of idiotic meme. Capitalism is the opposite of totalitarianism. Capitalism is the freedom to exploit free markets. Freedom. Capitalism thrives best under the rule of law. You don't understand anything that is true.
1
The argument is that you can't have democracy without capitalism. Capitalism is a "system" that requires a clear property/liberty rights regime. Equal application of the law and inclusive elections = democracy. If you have "socialism" or some other Utopian scheme you must have a de facto oligarchy to mete out "social justice" interventions, and that clearly can not be rule of the demos and hence can not be democratic. Leftwingers have twisted concepts and lexicons since they dubbed themselves owners of "reality." They see "reality" as Darwinism that must be managed. Managed social Darwinism can not be democratic, but it is implied that Darwin "proved" that democracy is impossible and therefore "guided" democracy is the best Utopian solution. They see capitalism as law of the jungle because they see humanity as a bunch of warring "tribes" or subspecies, races or whatever, that must be managed by "enlightened elites." IOW, it's all a will to power presented as altruism. Those "political spectrums" are paradigms, not scientific tests. Paradigms in philosophy help people to organize and test logic and arguments. It's always up to the individuals to decide "FWIW". Rule of law capitalism is the only truly democratic paradigm. It's how we actually define all of those ideas and understanding dependencies is crucial to understanding what any of those ideas are. Period. As soon as you put some class of ruler above "workers" or "capitalists" or whatever, you have a de facto oligarchy. Oligarchies are not ipso facto despotic according to early Christian thinkers because they can be chosen and led by God. Is that what you're selling? Socialists posit the same thing but instead their theory involves a self-serving view of Darwinism to make them the magical "altruistic" leaders (despots that smile a lot, like the Chinese Communists do).
1
You don't understand the difference between theory and reality. Capitalism is liberty under the rule of law. The Administrative state in the USA has definitely encroached on our liberties. That doesn't mean we don't have capitalism or democracy. That is total nonsense. However, to the extent that liberty is limited by DC Social Justice Regents capitalism is limited in that way. And to the extent that specialists in DC have power over the rest of us that shifts power away from the demos. But it's not a pass fail paradigm at all. In fact there is no actual way to do away with capitalism. To suggest that you can is totally ignorant.
1
Willy Won: "You must need to tell me how to not become so ignorant?" You should have been taught what critical thinking is before taking on other theoretical courses that have turned you in to an Unskilled and Unaware victim of the academic cult. You have been inculcated with Critical Theory as "settled science" or propagation of memes as part of the Gramscian culture war to promote "equality" of the Marxist worldview. The first step is to truly humble yourself rather than remaining a confused and arrogant mushroom that only has snark left as a defense mechanism to protect yourself from your own cognitive dissonance. Once you've solved those root problems you then need to revisit everything that you think you already know.
1
Antonio Garmsci 5 days ago "In addition to the above societies not being right wing, their "police state" behavior was partly due to the constant attack of the capitalist classes." Got any evidence to support your fact-free "culture war" assertion?
1
CCC 5 days ago stephen Toth "how do you account for the fact that Mussolini was always a socialist? " The difference between fascists in power and other doctrinaire socialists is that fascists recognize the need for a transition phase. It's easier to sell draconian policies when you can take power and have built in narratives for blaming the remaining "capitalists." Mussolini understood that "technology" still needed some relatively free people (some nominal private ownership scheme) to keep "progress" and "technology" from stalling prior to achieving "true socialism" or "Communism" at some future date. All of the justifications and road maps for the fascists were laid out by Lenin in his NEP when he explained the shift away from "war Communism" (IOW, why the revolution(s) failed to deliver on its promises). Communists in power also shift to fascism in all but name. Fascism is the Marxist phase between "capitalism" and Communism or "True Socialism."
1
Leftists have an inherent need to destroy the established lexicons in order to sell their ideas and new PC taboos that keep critics from exposing them as lunatics. See Antonio Gramsci (the historical figure, not the silly Google user).
1
Joseph Heston Joseph Heston 2 days ago "Well go tell your boss that his breath stinks, and see that you still have a job. Yes, capitalism is totalitarian." Freedom of association is totalitarian? Only to totalitarian wannabes like you promoting absolutely insane false equivalence narratives trying to "trigger" the "oppressed" to "seize the means of production." Totalitarian means that the government can weigh in on any decision it sees fit. Totalitarian is politicizing issues like whether you can fire rude employees or not.
1
Captain Kirk "OHM, "authoritarianism" aka autocratic top down gov't control can manifest itself in either left or right authoritarian gov't and has done so throughout history. Russia and Nazi Germany during the beginning of the 20th century are a good example." You're wrong. The Russian and German movements overthrew the established order. That makes them left wing. Learn the relevant history. You can't just stigmatize and "otherize" regimes that do the same things that you want to do by calling them right wing. Right wing authoritarianism in history is represented by monarchy plus mercantilism (and modern iterations of parasitic economic interventionism). Leftwing authoritarianism is "Progressive Social Justice" under modern paranoid "oppressor/oppressed" paradigms. The only right wing authoritarian regimes today are Shariah kingdoms. Unless you count the British and their commonwealth nations. Right wing = stable and using established institutions to retain power. Leftwing = aspirational (and delusional) views of Social Justice, democracy and so forth even if they hearken back to memes of the past, like "nationalism" or "the greatness of the Romans" or whatever. If a stable monarch styles himself after Caesar, that's right wing. If a revolutionary Marxist pretends to be protecting tradition "just like Caesar" then that is left wing, though somewhat more stealthy than self-described Communists, hence regarded as "right wing" according to Gramscian "Communist common sense." In theory, right wing authoritarianism can emerge very slowly from leftwing revolutions by gradually coopting the power taken by the dumb leftists. In theory the USA could turn to "right wing totalitarian regime" if it completely destroys separations of power, slowly, all while claiming to be preserving "norms" or something like that. FDR's New Deal was about stealth socialism and gradual authoritarianism. If the so-called right wing coopted that, that could be regarded as right wing authoritarianism at this point in history because the New Deal has been institutionalized and is seen by the majority as "normal" and "democratic." However, the right in the USA in fact strives to preserve the US Constitution, which is inherently liberal/libertarian and it is still the left that poses as "centrist" while destroying Constitutional protections of the demos (ordinary citizens) as individuals. Progressives want to be empowered to parse all legal rights and entitlements hence their rights regimes are not about individual rights at all but "right" to have "altruistic totalitarian" protectors in the capitals, meting out Social Justice.
1
Willy Won 2 hours ago "I am so impressed by the fact I never know critical thinking is a bad thing for my sense and logic." You obviously can not read properly. I clearly wrote that you need to learn what critical thinking is so that you stop using Critical Theory dogmas instead. "How can I be so stupid to believe in objective analysis of facts. " You have no idea what an objective fact is. "Capitalism and free market must be the ultimate solution for all problem in the all human race. It must be so." Nobody said ultimate. I said that it's simply part and parcel of individual freedom. You're a kook that can't even read. "And we must abolish all thing including medicare and medicaid, food stamps, Social security system. " You need to read Frederic Bastiat. I never said you had to abolish any social programs. I basically implied that doctrinaire socialism is based on idiocy, envy and incompetence. The thing is that you can't even comprehend what competent critics explain to you. "I think we must not have government at all. Because free market will regulated everything, and once everyone only thought for its onw benefit and take care of himself, we will be living in ever harmony that will last till the end of the world." Idiot, I have consistently stressed that capitalism thrives under the rule of law. That isn't anarchy. You don't understand any history. Of anything. "Also now I really believe we must also cancel the minimun wage, because that is using public power to disrupt and influence the running of free market and private business." You should abandon delusional views of wage controls. But you won't. "American should also abolish all taxs, because taxes including income tax and property tax are using public authority to steal money from hardworking people and give that money to the lazy ones. It is just not fair." America, all nations, should abolish all gratuitous taxes, for sure. And you should learn to read properly before given any academic credentials that mislead you in to thinking that you're prepared to criticize economic and political systems and the parasitic ideologues that do nothing but complain.
1
Willy Won 19 hours ago (edited) "Captain Krik, don't question Indoesia America, he musst be right. " You're a liar. Prove that you are right with logic, not lying whinges. I clearly denounced Critical Theory as a replacement for critical thinking. You write as if I condemned critical thinking when I did the polar opposite. You're a very blatant liar. You defame only yourself.
1
Captain Kirk 18 hours ago (edited) "Willy what is it about this post that seems to attract delusional trolls? According to you free markets are "made by God" and critical thinking is counter productive, really? " Hey, liar, who are you talking to? Why don't you quote the text that you're responding to? Because you know that you're a liar. Fact check: You are a delusional troll and a liar.
1
Highlighted reply Comrade Collie a.k.a Nimh 1 day ago "Indonesia America You clearly don't understand the difference between private and personal property..." Yes I do, Marxist moron. It's a false binary created by Marxist morons. The idea was that Marxists are reasonable and are not going to seize "personal" things but only crap that they want for themselves. In the name of Social Justice. The Marxists will let you keep your own toothbrush assuming they don't kill you. "Capitalism is a political-economic system, not the fundamental and only way of being. I'm not sure if are being deliberately ignorant or not, please let me know." Moron, Capitalism is a way for people to leverage their skills and trade valuable goods and services for things that they don't want to create or do for themselves. I never said that you are not allowed to live on your own farm or in your own cave without "capitalism" but that is probably where your ignorant ass belongs. Your entire worldview is about looking for justifications to demand free things from others.
1
1 day ago "Indonesia America You clearly don't understand the difference between private and personal property...." And how did you even come up with that inference? WTF is wrong with your brain?
1
Comrade Collie a.k.a Nimh "Again you mischaracterize socialist ideas intentionally or not." Explaining the differences between theory and reality is not mischaracterizing. It's the exact opposite. I never say "your idea is nominally to control everything for selfish reasons." I'm discussing reality, not your PR. Your ideas are allegedly altruistic but they are untested against reality and failures are always explained with naive circular logic. Basically, you expect some kind of magical "justice" to occur by politicizing wealth and allowing incompetent parasites an equal (or greater) say in what happens to wealth that they as individuals had no hand in creating.
1
Comrade Collie a.k.a Nimh: "I'm not looking for ways to take things for others for myself, I'm very well off in the grand scheme have no need of yours or anyone else's resources." And why can't you teach this "relative success" framework to others without resorting to property seizures?
1
Comrade Collie a.k.a Nimh Indonesia America "I was born into a relatively wealthy part of my country in a wealthy part of the world," So? Find people in "the wealthy part of the world" to prove socialism works voluntarily, and gradually you teach others. There is no "wealthy parts of the world" without wealth-creating people. You don't believe that wealth creation can be taught. That's your first problem. The second problem is that you're arrogant and incorrigible. "...born into a family who valued education and who were able to support me through my education." Wait...you now say it's about education too? Why not pass that along? You're only "educated" in some limited way that you can only "teach" prosperity through begging? "I also succeeded due to the free education and healthcare my country provides." Lots of places have free education. You're selling socialism. You're not offering rational policy suggestions. "Not everyone gets these chances in life, in fact few do." Right. So your mission should be about effective education rather than propagating blame-shifting memes around the world to make people feel permanently "disenfranchised" every time that they see a Mercedes or smell a fat steak that they can't afford at that moment.
1
If you're logically consistent you have to admit that teaching people about "the glories of free market capitalism" and how to compete is the most rational and effective "socialist" idea of all.
1
sunnohh 19 minutes ago "So one of the many nuances of Stalinist style communist regimes was the belief or the political lie that the country itself is great. The idea that a country is better than others is a fundamentally right wing political thought." My goodness. You people will never learn. Stalin suggested that "Communism" under his magical leadership was "the greatest" in a zero sum race to bring "capitalists" to heal. He considered himself the vanguard leader. Marx was a racist as well, by the way. So according to you anyone with power that has a zero-sum agenda is right wing. According to you power is inherently "right wing" or something. I think you need a little island to retire to. US Constitutionalist believe that America is "the greatest" at delivering the greatest individual liberty, which is a portable, synergistic concept. Japan and Germany, our bitter enemies during WWII, are now considered "great" to the extent that they compete honestly against us. Because we do not view life or economic competition in zero-sum terms like all of the incompetent Marxists do. Constitutionalists want to be great competitors in a synergistic game. They want to win tennis, golf, or whatever, based on the rule of law and a good faith "rules based world order." They don't want to kill their competition and take their things. They often enjoy coaching as much as direct competition. It's an adult thing you can't comprehend. Left-wingers invented the very concept of "cosmological justice" through property seizures. Zero sum morons like you and Stalin are inherently leftist. To move to the right is to move towards liberty, small government, and teaching prosperity with a charitable heart. It's the exact opposite of you and Stalin. The difference between you and Stalin is that he had enormous power to abuse whereas you have none. The only way that a "right winger" can take on "socialist" or zero sum policies as you suggest is, for example, the old monarchies in Europe that cling to power by increasing social programs. Those are the only "right wing" socialists. The truth is that the only "right wing" in America were the Royalists that moved to Canada.
1
"The idea that a country is better than others is a fundamentally right wing political thought." You can't even conceive of any non-Marxist thoughts. Conservatism is about preserving what is good and carefully vetting "change" proposals. See Frederic Bastiat. US conservatives worship foreign thought leaders and posit that it is only our legal system that makes us great. The entire idea that nation A can be great only by "winning" over everyone else suggests a zero sum worldview that overturns Westphalian sovereignty. Period. US conservatives and most conservatives around the world value Westphalian sovereignty almost above any other governing concept. The idea of the global zero sum war was articulated as a single worldview by Marx. He built on the emerging paranoid consensus of socialists that posited a zero sum worldview to explain the ruling class's relationship with "disenfranchised" or what the French called the Third Estate. The problem that you have is that by the time Marx even came on the scene plenty of evidence was already available taht capitalism itself, with emerging technologies, would create a middle class that would eventually make "democracy" possible without basing it on wealth redistribution. Those ideas took root in the USA first because of opportunities presented by history. American greatness is not about lording over others. It's about calling to others. It's about education. For you to be consistent you have to "hate" the "arrogance" of teachers that suggest they can lead the way in classrooms just because of their academic accomplishments. But no, you have to take everything and filter it through the lens of historical materialism and your paranoid zero sum worldview that you think is "settled science" and the rest of us call doctrinaire Marxism.
1
"Socialism is a national policy suggestion, it is. Free healthcare and education are socialist policies," You don't even know the difference between an idea and a policy suggestion. Who would (legally) create these programs? How would they be funded? Which courts would rule over emerging conflicts? "I suppose in your mind those are free market capitalist ideas. " They are neither. First of all, you can't stop conflating idea with policy. Second, "free" education policy proposals can emerge from anywhere. The rational argument for putting together rational free education is that it leads to maximum self-reliance and a greater collective. Unless Communists take over. I have no problem at all with free education for life. I would like to see that. But the programs must be sane and effective. You can teach Marxism where the competent people are always free to debunk it. Marxists should not be allowed to promote their worldview outside of political theory classes. Marxists are Gaslighters and you are one of the incompetent Gaslit victims. "I assume you live in America where you certainly don't have free healthcare." Wrong. You just don't know what you're talking about and you don't know what "rational" means. Utopia doesn't exist. The USA does not have European-style socialized "healthcare." Thank God. It's already massively intrusive dealing with the FDA but at least the products and services are vetted extremely well with minimal conflict of interest problems. You can call that "reasonable socialism" if you like because it doesn't rely on plebs to vet their own choices. Add wealth redistribution to it as the ACA is trying to do and forget about modern civilization because you'll all be living in caves in 20 years.
1
"Yes, any school of thought can suggest and implement free healthcare, " You still don't get it: Great ideas don't emerge from "schools" unless you're looking for a reason to credit the "school" for illogical reasons. Consensus on great ideas emerges from critical thinking and good faith consensus building. Socialism has its own dogmas. All "isms" are known by dogmas. The only dogma of critical thinking is that relying on unchallenged dogmas is illogical. "...however, it is an inherently socialist idea, that is to say, it falls under the definition of socialist policy." No, it's not inherently socialist. Socialism in history was always about people disenfranchised from the ruling class, number one, and then number two was "machines" will replace unskilled labor and therefore these power disparities need to be resolved. We have solved ALL of the original grievance of the pre-Marxist socialists here in the USA without even once alluding to socialist "school of thought." Medicine wasn't even a respected field of science when Marx published his manifesto. You simply do NOT know what you're talking about. Socialism is inherently about "solving power disparities." You only have two choices from there: Equal application of the law (AKA "the rule of law") or equality of outcome where the altruistic ruling class appeases its constituents with wealth redistribution and related programs. The USA created the first rule of law republic. Therefore all of the socialist's grievances were solved as soon as labor law became hegemonic and citizens were all granted equal voting rights. Public schools try to bridge the gap with "equality of opportunity" programs that parasitic Marxists try to leverage and transform in to parasitic "equality of outcome" guarantees. IOW, it's a cult of "common sense" parasitism. Free medicine demands emerged (mostly in Europe after the USA already started sending massive aid) after WWI and WWII when we already had built massive "mobilization" efforts for various "wartime" justifications. "The US does not have free healthcare, keep denying it if you want, it does not make it any less true." Yes it does. You can not be denied care for urgent medical needs and you can not be forced to pay if you are unable. Period. That is the law of the land and has been for decades. Your Utopian expectations will never be met. Ever. If you say that the Europeans have it right then move there and shut up. Because European socialism is still highly dependent on free market capitalism.
1
You keep moving the goalposts.
1
Left wing is supposed to be representing the disenfranchised. Nationalist leftists are tribalists with collectivist victim narratives, posing as disenfranchised. Using stories to present as "disenfranchised" by class or class identity suggests the belief in an intractable "class" war. Nationalist leftists see the relevant "warring classes" as occurring between rival tribes and nations. Internationalists are more focused on "the rich" against "the poor." Nonetheless, anyone posing as "disenfranchised" in a zero-sum political or economic paradigm is innately leftist. It's also possible for established leftists, like Communists, to pose as "victims of capitalism" (rich people) while gaining power and then pivot to "victims of international capital" (more explicit conspiracies about "bankers" and so forth) as they become fascists that try to appeal to their base in spite of their obvious growing power. It also shifts focus away from their blatant incompetence as rulers that can solve any of the problems that they initially complained about.
1
Communism is the prophecy that "labor" will become redundant because of "machines" (now "robots") and that that will be the basis for an "end of history" state of civilization that no longer has class conflict and so forth. Political Marxism is ANY political idea that counts on this "arc of history" idea of "machines make work redundant" and usually include nation against nation and faction against faction "class war" to control "capital" hence control of all "machines" and hence total control over the "inevitable" unified world government.
1
The only successful "social democracy" was the USA until FDR turned it in to a "right wing authoritarian" blah blah blah. Oh, not right wing because we're so rich? Huh? The critical thinking skills have been destroyed among those trying to use childish arguments to sell the culture of "socialism" that really has no actual meaning other than "altruistic" civilization. We're already pretty darn altruistic. Now what do you want? You want to (dishonestly) revise recorded history and the entire English lexicon to what end?
1
This video makes no sense. Destroying individual rights in the name of collectivist Social Justice never works. Period. If you're trying to expand "socialism" to anything that sounds like a good idea from the history of civilization, that's just civilization, not socialism per se. Socialists were concerned about "social justice" in the light of the emerging Industrial Revolution(s). And then certain parasitic thought leaders put out blame-shifting stories and turned parasitism in to something like what Gramsci called new "common sense." It's basically a culture war and your intellectually dishonest arguments are why the war hasn't ended. Rule of law capitalism allows for "disparity." Truly sensible social programs are social programs, not doctrinaire "socialism." Social programs that work are based on rational proposals offered in good faith and humble recipients of assistance. Doctrinaire socialism is creating "rights" stories about how ancestors suffered under blah blah blah and "corporate fascism" is killing us all and so on and so for. No facts needed for Social Justice. The way that you can tell the difference is whether or not the taxpayers can make adjustments to the programs without the parasites screaming about "human rights" and so forth.
1
And aside all of that, the ultimate "socialist" program is free schools until the kids reach the age of adulthood. We have that. So what are they crying about now? Oh, you want to control everything. Just because of stories...
1
Reality: Essence of socialism: "Hey, these machines are screwing us because we're poor and the "rich" can just buy machines instead of hiring us. We need to rethink property rights regimes." Socialism works to the extent that we honestly examine these issues and develop good faith solutions. Socialism fails when people figure out that they can use these historical victim narratives to create mendacious "rights" violations and turn to "altruistic" parasitism, like people that grow wealthy doing nothing all of their lives but "helping the disenfranchised." Their only specialty is selling victim class stories to the public and to the pandering politicians. The simple fact is that the US founders already anticipated legitimate "socialism" grievances while preserving the private property rights regimes by ensuring that courts and legislative bodies were available to deal with legitimate grievances. Only slavery in the USA distorts our perfect "labor" record. And that was caused by elitist Darwinist arguments, not a flaw in the Constitutional or "socialist" framework. All of the other grievances (among US citizens) can easily be knocked down one by one when looking at actual case evidence. Furthermore, promoting our "rights" paradigms around the world, accepting and embracing organic disparity as part of "diversity" that we value, helps all of the people in the world except for mendacious parasites and fascist regimes that cling to the inherently "socialist" monikers. Disparity does not equal disenfranchisement. Work does not equal oppression.
1