Comments by "VoidX" (@aus-li) on "Who is Censored More? Liberals vs Conservatives | Middle Ground" video.
-
604
-
153
-
131
-
@CP-ir3ft Yes, even though the term compiles many ideologies, it’s more “progressive”, at least in the US. I don’t associate myself with it, or really acknowledge it, however, lol.
When I say I’m a “socialist” or “communist”, literally everyone, ever, has defined Marx’s “communism” and relates that to me. When in reality, all of them haven’t read any of his works or researched political theology in general. I have my own definition of communism, which is nothing like Marx’s; one major factor being he essentially supported dictatorship, I don’t.
86
-
80
-
@CP-ir3ft I don’t mind being associated as such. But in full confidence, I’m a liberal, lol, even one of my political admirers is FDR.
I’m a “liberal” in the sense that I support government programs and the government in general supporting its citizens. Sadly, the US is corrupt, unorganized, and exploitative because of unregulated, capitalistic laws that create loopholes to benefit the wealthy.
I’m on the side where I think public assistance, overall, could truly help the people who are suffering, if they were completely reformed (along with the entire system, of course).
69
-
35
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Lina_al_j I know what these terms mean, I’ve done the research already, which is why nobody is understanding anything I’m saying because you haven’t done the research yourself.
Yes, there are different types of democracies, but the “voting” system is a trait of democracy itself; as you said yourself, it doesn’t mean it uses the variables of the term.
Russia is an authoritarian country with fascist elements, including the removal of “free speech” and “free expression”, for example.
I already said all that, lol, you’re repeating what I’ve stated. That socialism and communism have different interpretations, definitions, opinions, and theories that can make up a system.
“Communism”, to me, is definitely not “extreme” whatsoever, and I’ll breakdown my ideology/theory behind it, since nobody is comprehending:
First off, all different political and economic philosophies can indeed work together if you borrow certain elements and add it to a “portfolio” to make sense. However, I’m just using communism and socialism as examples, since I need to emphasize the importance of how they correlate.
Socialism represents the laborers who are working in a society (literally making up a civilization), which automatically makes them “socialist”. Which means socialists work, produce, innovate, create profit, and programs (or welfare systems). A socialist working in a environment doesn’t necessarily mean they’re passionate about their job, or the people that they work with, which means they also don’t have to be sympathetic or empathetic, right? Because their colleagues could be just “acquaintances”, not friends.
Now “communism” includes the same elements as socialism, but there’s more “passion” behind it. Think about “per capita” based on a country, for instance, a country that produces something in great value is purely “communist” based. People in a community have empathic and sympathetic traits because they form bonds, friendships, and they help each other, which is why the government is usually not associated with many communities, because they’re disconnected.
Now, let’s bring in capitalism. Think about these essential philosophies in a working town that functions normally: public and private properties. They all work differently but produce the same results: profit.
Since they’re creating profit, they share the same major factors, and this also includes taxes from those same socialists or laborers. To clarify my point, is that you can mix them together and they all learn from each other in some form. I can’t figure out why everyone is not understanding that you can have many philosophies in “action”, and they all work off each other, even sometimes creating a hybrid.
The problem is that none of you are thinking “outside the box”, instead, are looking at something in absolutism, where you can’t challenge a system because you’ve already decided its limitations.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@djnixon5791 Marx's interpretation has been "played out". His rule of "dictatorship" and a "party" have all been established.
Well, I disagree with you there, because you found someone who supports capitalism, socialism and communism as a balanced package.
The government, the public and private space are interconnected by sharing all the same elements, and they all feed off each other. For some reason, no one here can fully grasp that I have my own "theory" as to why this makes sense to me, and instead, are "branding" me, or telling I'm wrong for having my own virtues as a philosopher. This defeats the purpose of having freedom of expression as a "philosopher" in general.
Mostly everyone in this thread is copy/pasting the same "formula", including you, like recycled bots who can't form their own opinions, which doesn't make you a "philosopher" or an intellectual. This is why nobody is reading anything, you people are clearly reading from one nonsensical source, and using it as dogma for the same argument.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@wojciechkorfanty9567 It doesn’t matter. Having the people vote is still part of “democracy”, even if it’s controlled and manipulated, the theory is still at play.
Socialism promotes workers and still creates profit. There’s also a “hierarchy” attached to every workplace, where someone is making profit.
Socialism has many theories and systems, so really, it is part of capitalism, otherwise innovations wouldn’t happen, or the industrial system wouldn’t be advancing. Communism works in the same aspects.
Marx got lucky. Him and Engles were hard workers, that’s why Marx was very poor, because he talked and traveled all day. He definitely holds a “monopoly”, because he’s still referenced, and communism is still used in a few counties, it’s not irrelevant, lol.
That’s the point! They’re full of a giant spectrum of theories. You’re ignoring that main argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@egor6946 First off, I appreciate you for not being insecure, insulting me, or ranting nonsense.
They’re not “exactly” the same, as I said many times, but they share similar elements. I did say they’re “interchangeable” in the beginning of this thread, which probably isn’t the best term to use, however, they all relate in terms to the workers.
I understood you. I’m still a liberal, overall, representing those qualities. Literally the only conservative view I agree with, is the immigration system, and how accepting too many immigrants isn’t good for the economy.
That is part of my theory of socialism, it’s my personal opinion, based on how every human who is working, creating profit for the private or public entity, are therefore socialist.
Why wouldn’t you want to be called a “philosopher”? That doesn’t make sense. We as humans, have our own methods and techniques on dealing with life in general. You’re essentially saying you have no individualistic traits. No, I said from the beginning I have my own interpretation/opinions on these terms. I’m “making up” something that isn’t based on Marxism...that’s literally it.
Dude, this is called “propaganda”, to follow beliefs of an individual who expressed their own opinions, without even doing the research to find out what the individual believed in. Have you read his works? His manifesto? You’re following everyone else, which is what a “cult” does: vulnerable humans who blindly follow a “system” without fully understanding anything about it, or it’s actions and consequences.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@channy6995 I used to think I was a lot of things: Social Democrat, Social anarchist, Libertarian socialist, etc.
Now I'm just a "liberal". If you get too deep into the political spectrum of these terms, it becomes a giant headache, then you get into the "neo" situation...no thanks. I've done all the research, and I'm confident of my political views.
I know my rights, read all the constitutions, manifestos, Code of Laws, etc. I know what's what.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Lina_al_j I thought you were the other individual who talked about direct democracy.
Even so, you assumed I didn’t know what I was saying, even though I already explained afterwards.
You didn’t give me your genuine opinion of all that I detailed in my reply, you gave me emojis? Of course I’m not going to take you seriously after you did that, further insulting me by calling me “a kid”, when you’re freaking out, losing your composure.
What “references” are you taking about? You’re supposedly an undergraduate in political science and you can’t quote me? Where is your integrity as a writer?
Talk to me. Tell me what you mean?
Thank you for acknowledging that I’m finally able to have my “own definitions”. I’m not being sarcastic, you’re the first one to say so.
Oh no, I’ve done my “research”, I dedicated myself to political science, and history in general. I did answer your questions, you didn’t read it, otherwise you’d be criticizing my points.
Wikipedia is a great source, that’s how I become a self-educated historian in the first place. Wikipedia has many links that are from government related sites, books, and legitimate articles.
2
-
@Lina_al_j Why don’t you “enlighten” me on my confusion, instead of telling me? You’re a socialist if you’re being productive, coming up with solutions and delivering on your actions, aren’t you participating in society? If the government is delivering on their actions, producing positive changes, creating programs, how is that not socialist?
The key words here is: “are not the only thing that defines democracy”. Of course, manipulating votes is not the entire philosophy of “democracy”, that’s why I said the right to vote is a trait of democracy.
Not true at all. You didn’t read where I said “authoritarian” countries have fascist elements, even if they’re disguised as “democratic”.
You’re not being a “fascist” right now, that’s only if you said “I’m wrong for the sake of being wrong, and you’re right”, without giving an explanation...but you tried your best.
2
-
2
-
@UCCo-B4Z4O9if9o4PyI9RBYQ I have nothing "confused", I've read many of his works, his talks on capitalism, alienation, and read his manifesto 2 times. I've been researching political science for years now.
No, Marx was a lost hypocrite. He supports capitalism at times, then hates on it. He supports laborers/workers, then says he doesn't support individualism, which in itself is toxic. What he does support, is the slave mentality of a "worker" who is having an "orgasmic" experience working their life away, as he explains it.
You can't support the people if the "party" controls their lives. It's a major fallacy and contradiction, when in reality the workers have no say other than obeying the so-called party.
What could not be "utilized" about my opinions? My definitions are simplistic and are straightforward as possible. I don't get what you're saying?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JayTeeDE No, you’re right, everyone interprets Marxism differently (sometimes taking those fascist elements out). I still don’t agree with it, however.
No surprise there with Operation Condor, lol. The CIA is known to completely destroy growth and intellectual developments in any country.
I seen the developments of Eva Morales not too long ago on Vice, when he was trying to get back into office.
Imperialism/war is indeed part of capitalism, but you’re right, even though I personally dislike Marx, I can’t say all his views were “inherently evil”, because he did have some positive thoughts about the working class. He just wanted a better life for them. Although his “hatred” for the elites really made him biased and bitter in the end; thus his polemic nature really showed.
My definitions of socialism and communism won’t change, though, I’ve had my theory in place for a while now, and I strictly talk about the fundamentals of those terms. I’m not trying to complicate anything, which is why I’m confused no one is getting it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ebru1750 Yes, and was has that individual said to me in full context? Did you not read my replies on socialism and communism?
They didn’t “disagree” with me. This entire thread is me defending my theories, while people are saying I’m completely “wrong” because I think differently. I’m a radical in the eyes of everyone here because they don’t realize socialism is used to help the entire population, by programs the government provides. Because everyone is a socialist by default, if we’re all in harmony, no?
No, liberal by itself includes a ton of different philosophies, because the major factor being, you’re open-minded to the possibilities of other philosophies that are “outgoing”. You can’t say I might not be “100” not liberal, then proceed to say nothing to explain why you said that.
Dude, you keep ranting but not answering me. I told you, tell me your definition of socialism, then tell me how I’m wrong. Then we can actually have a productive conversation with an end goal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@derickbelisle6499 Lol, it’s just random, is all.
I’m not a Marxist, so it doesn’t relate to me.
Derick, philosophy is philosophy. It’s literally based on your opinion on society and the world. Political science is philosophy. Psychology is philosophy. Sociology is philosophy. Living in general is philosophy.
I said “aspects” of socialism, I never stated “full socialism”...ever in this thread! I’ve been saying I’m a liberal, who uses specific aspects of different political/economic philosophies to make up a system that applies to my virtues and morality.
“How can you have a national system that operates on markets and doesn’t operate on markets at the same time”
All I said was that they can “coexist” in the same environment, I never said they’re exactly the same.
Derick, I said this many times, that these 2 systems, socialism and capitalism, can be reformed and regulated, separately, if they’re handled in the right way.
Although a “socialist” is still a laborer in general, in any working environment. A communist is a community member, which I referenced in my earlier comment, is related to “tribal” mentality. These are my own interpretations on the terms.
In conclusion, I can appreciate both these systems, and take away aspects that I want to use in my own system. The public can borrow ideas from the private, vice versa. I said this same exact sentence in this thread.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blazoraptor3392 As I said before, since nobody understands me when I said I agree with certain aspects of those political ideologies, I just mean I relate to those characteristics in that particular term. If you don't understand that, I can't help anyone on here.
I'm a liberal who supports free healthcare, free education, private businesses, gender equality, pro-choice, same-sex marriage, government programs, antitrust laws, free speech, democracy, etc.
2
-
@patrickbentley4038 That’s exactly what I mean, you basically explained it.
The commenter “CP” mentioned a “mixed economy”, which is what that essentially means.
Then you have the “welfare state” in the US, that encompasses socialist values, in other words, programs that offer assistance to the population. Although I don’t agree with every program because I feel like they “hinder” individuals in some instances, especially with government healthcare, like Medicaid, it not being the more effective system for people who are really sick. Another example is Section 8, that in my opinion, doesn’t promote a worker mentality, but relies too much on government assistance.
Then you have the Nordic model in Nordic countries, and that is called “market economy”, where it’s the welfare state in the US, just way more efficient. And yes, it still has socialist characteristics, even though it features more of capitalism, so it promotes a healthier, reliant system altogether.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@egor6946 I’ve never once, remotely used Marxism as my opinion on communism or socialism. Lol, if you really think I believe in a “revolution” in the same words as Marx, you’re not reading what I’ve been saying.
Look up “mixed economy”, then tell me how they can’t “coexist”. Tell me how, a country like the US, can function with private and public domains at the same time? This country is a mix of contradictions, lol. How are we authoritarian, capitalist, so-called “democratic”, and a corporatocracy all at the same time?
Listen, don’t just blindly follow a definition and think that’s all there is, when there’s a system of theories that follow it.
That doesn’t make sense. I’m pro-choice? What does that have to do with conservatism if they’re “pro-life”? I never said I was a centrist, I’m a “liberal”. However, I can take a conservative aspect/view and agree with it, since they follow their own system on how a society can function, same with liberalism.
But a society is socialist. A “king” himself is a socialist if he is making the rules, being productive, socializing in general to produce actions or change. It doesn’t mean he loves his people, it just means he’s interactive with both the people and economy.
If you want to be considered a philosopher, you need to have “free will”. Tell me your definition of socialism, and don’t reference Marxism, because he doesn’t have to be included: he’s been dead over a 100 years now and he doesn’t own these terminologies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@I Love Sovonthak If you want be brainwashed and mention Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles for literally every argument for the word “communism” (without even referencing their ideals), then go ahead. I get it, they have many theories and variants of the word, they both elaborated on it than any other philosopher before them. I might agree with the general aspect of the workers in an environment, working together in unison, but not much else that followed.
However, I have my own interpretation and theories that fit my own political agenda. I don’t believe in all of their opinions on the term, and all that follows it.
My definition of the term is pretty simplistic, and I’ve explained it many times on this thread, but literally not one person has read it: communism is in essence, a group of of people, a tribe, working together, passionately to solve issues together, eventually coming up with a solution to fix that problem. I also explained my interpretation on socialism, that I think is slightly different on how they function.
The “communism” that you’re thinking of, when Marx explained it, is obviously more detailed, and follows ideals like no “freedom of expression” in his society. I don’t believe that to be true, when communities in general, consists of multiple personalities, and different social strategies to solve a problem.
Marx didn’t want a “personality” in that mix, because then it would be considered “capitalist”, since the capitalists hold all the power. So then that’s why I think part of his philosophy is flawed, because the “party” are essentially the capitalists, telling the population what to do.
Anyway, I can’t do much more if you don’t understand even this, as I’ve tried to adapt to this thread in terms of uneducated responses. The rest is up to you to do the research.
2
-
2
-
@elizabethjin2759 You do know Marx and Engels combined "communism" with other words, right? They came up with other systems, basically.
They were also influenced by earlier philosophers, too.
Sure I can support both, as I've said with the "mixed economy", or even explained earlier on that I'm a liberal, so I support socialist programs, and I love the private entity, especially those small businesses.
Look up these 4 political ideologies: liberal, libertine, liberty, libertarian.
What's the one thing they have in common?
But anyway, the word isn't owned by Marx, just because he came up with the system, doesn't mean he owns the word itself. I have my own interpretation on the word, so therefore I can use it freely any way I choose, which is far from Marx's opinions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lina_al_j Do you really want to test me, lol?
I’ve already explained what anarchism, socialism, and democracy is. You can literally quote me when I explained them on this thread, or you can try to say how “wrong” I was...but you obviously won’t.
Marx’s communism and Mussolini’s fascism are all about control: Marx literally states in his manifesto that “individualism” is non-existent in his “utopia”, that everyone is a “proletariat” and works without prevail. Mussolini repeats the same notions, no individualism being the major factor of his argument, with the exception of religion, Roman Catholicism being essential to his cause, in contrast to Marx who is an atheist.
Socialism is dominant in both these philosophies, working for the government, not the individualistic desires of the people, to create a “powerhouse” of authority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williama1859 But I can, because according to my opinions on them, they’re one and the same. They rely on each other to make everything else go smoothly.
I want a regulated capitalist system, and I also want a reformed socialist system.
If I had my own company, which is private, my mentality wouldn’t be leaning on one side of either philosophy, I would however be using both, of those positive attributes that I would be implementing.
The same goes for my values on libertarian (which is still liberal) and anarchist aspects. If I was a boss, I would want my employees to have complete creative freedom, no dress codes, open dialogue and debates, a voting system (depending on the context), etc.
But, I still want discipline, deadlines, and dedication. A comfortable working environment where nobody judges; and a respectable hierarchy, where individuals are able to lead their own teams to create their own projects.
Of course, a smaller/medium sized team is more preferable, than a very large team where you can’t converse, or be a genuine community.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derickbelisle6499 Yes, I know what capitalism means, lol.
Saying you “can’t be” doesn’t make sense. How are you majoring in political science and don’t understand the meaning of philosophy? Philosophy adapts and evolves based on your experiences, moral compass, and integrity. It doesn’t stay the same.
Also, why is Angela Davis mixed in with dead people, so random, lol.
Anyway, I’m not taking about just one thing, I mentioned how capitalism, socialism and communism can all coexist. How is it a “paradox”, if they work by default in a society?
And no, I believe anything could be a problem, all you have to do is reform them, take leadership qualities to fix those issues.
1
-
@ebru1750 I’m clearly not freaking out, lol.
I support socialism, capitalism, communism, etc. I never said they were the exact same thing, or mean the exact same thing. I said they can all literally live in the same neighborhood, and feed off each other. A public and private school can literally be a block away from each other, they have different systems in place, but it doesn’t mean they’re not functioning in the same overall environment. A private school can do things a public can’t, the same applies to the public. But, they can maybe learn or adapt from each other.
All I’m saying is that I take these aspects and use it as a perspective, in context to how something could fail or be successful if applied, be fixed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yellowbrand You need to educate yourself and learn the differences.
Conservatism limits many civil rights, such as same-sex marriage, abortion rights (which is part of individualism), and gender equality. We can clearly see the conservatives has issues with the LBTQ+ community, too. Although I don’t agree with everything they do, it should be their life to do what they want, as long as it’s not too extreme.
Liberalism wants to make society more “free”, most of the laws and policies are “progressive” when it comes to diversity and helping out those who need governmental assistance. Gun-rights is also a controversial issue with liberals, as they want to limit gun usage, compared to conservatives who don’t want changes.
If you would’ve read any further, you would’ve noticed I said it was a slight mistake, then I went ahead and listed the correct terms.
I’m an amateur theologian in the Abrahamic religions, and have done major research on the most important aspects of those religions. So, don’t even try to insult my intelligence, lol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TF-tn4ft No, not Marxism, I have my own interpretation of communism. I apply the standards of a healthy community in general, working together in an ecosystem, where you’re creating bonds and being creative.
I went to a community college for example, where I was involved with the locals, and learned the area in full, while making connections, which is similar to my principles on socialism. Just because of the “ism”, for some reason, I can’t use the word, lol...such nonsense.
Anyway, yes, you should have the “rights” to use these words however you see fit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soggycereal8626 No, I just mean people working in general, lol, to create or produce materials. Capitalists have to interact with their workers to make profit, to make sure the workflow is efficient.
Again, I don’t follow Marx’s opinions on socialism and communism. I’ve written my one interpretations on this thread, and my theories are based on humanitarian aspects where everything is transparent and equal.
You’re specifically referencing one con of capitalism, which is exploitation of a corrupt leader. But if I was my own boss, and had my own small business, I wouldn’t be exploiting my workers. It all depends on your philosophy as a human being, your integrity and morals. If you’re head of a giant company, you’ve got a high chance of becoming a corrupt capitalist. It all depends on you, your group of leaders you work with, and how interactive you’re within the giant community that is your business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@racheljane_ I would say their ideals of “progressivism” is extremism, since ethics, dignity, and common sense are nowhere to be found, lol.
If you think about it, liberty should be coherent on all sides, even in socialism. As a socialist myself (I classify myself as many things), I believe the government should be regulated for their on-going corruption for exploiting the people.
I wouldn’t even say it’s “authoritarian”, I would say, for example, cancel culture is pure fascism, literally destroying an individuals life and career. There’s no “debates” being had whatsoever, just accusations and hatred.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1