the limits of fascism

[henry quirk]

When the presentation is a farce, as objections to socialism typically are, the distinction is a necessary evil.

Not seein' the farce...also not seein' any real defense of socialism, er, "Socialism".

The reason you're not seeing it is because that's not relevant to the point i was making.

What point? Is nitpickin' a point?

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=501823 time=1615560329 user_id=472]
What point? Is [i]nitpickin'[/i] a point?

🤔
[/quote]

Showing how a previous discussion is inherently useless because it discludes common ground is hardly the same as nitpicking. That sort of comment is why conversations derail.

[Walker]

Not seein' the farce...also not seein' any real defense of socialism, er, "Socialism".

The reason you're not seeing it is because that's not relevant to the point i was making.

What point? Is nitpickin' a point?

The way I figure it ...

To insist on a particular capitalization in order to distinguish a word, the distinguishing based on a personal perception not commonly shared although correlating, relating, and perhaps reacting to the word "should", can be called a cogent example of fascism if you stamp your foot and insist everyone now use that capitalization. But in this situation, why get freaky about caps, wot?

Gracias.

[Advocate]

Distinguishing the common use of a term that belies a more sophisticated one in order to get to the fucking point is not nitpicking ffs. You who cannot tell the difference between nits and Centrally Necessary Pillars of Understanding should step back.

[henry quirk]

What point? Is nitpickin' a point?

Showing how a previous discussion is inherently useless because it discludes common ground is hardly the same as nitpicking. That sort of comment is why conversations derail.

That's the the thing: you didn't actually show anything. You made a declaration.

You -- without undergirdin' -- picked a nit.

[henry quirk]

The reason you're not seeing it is because that's not relevant to the point i was making.

What point? Is nitpickin' a point?

The way I figure it ...

To insist on a particular capitalization in order to distinguish a word, the distinguishing based on a personal perception not commonly shared although correlating, relating, and perhaps reacting to the word "should", can be called *a cogent example of fascism if you stamp your foot and insist everyone now use that capitalization. But in this situation, why get freaky about caps, wot?

Gracias.

*Nah...it's just picayune nitpickin'.

[Immanuel Can]

You can't judge an ideology as a whole by particular instances....

Yeah, you can...and should. Especially when every single instance in which Socialism has been made the political-economic model of a country, dictatorship has taken over, the economy has collapsed in disaster, and the corpses have piled up.

The real question is, "How many dictators does Socialism have to empower, how many economies does Socialism have to destroy, and how many people does Socialism have to kill before we'll be done with it?" Because there's got to be a number at which sane and decent people say, "Enough; we're not doing that again."

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=501860 time=1615563674 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=501791 time=1615558309 user_id=15238]
You can't judge an ideology as a whole by particular instances....
[/quote]
Yeah, you can...and should. Especially when every single instance in which Socialism has been made the political-economic model of a country, dictatorship has taken over, the economy has collapsed in disaster, and the corpses have piled up.

The real question is, "How many dictators does Socialism have to empower, how many economies does Socialism have to destroy, and how many people does Socialism have to kill before we'll be done with it?" Because there's got to be a number at which sane and decent people say, "Enough; we're not doing that again."
[/quote]

Straw man as fuck. You're attacking a ghost.

[Immanuel Can]

You can't judge an ideology as a whole by particular instances....

Yeah, you can...and should. Especially when every single instance in which Socialism has been made the political-economic model of a country, dictatorship has taken over, the economy has collapsed in disaster, and the corpses have piled up.

The real question is, "How many dictators does Socialism have to empower, how many economies does Socialism have to destroy, and how many people does Socialism have to kill before we'll be done with it?" Because there's got to be a number at which sane and decent people say, "Enough; we're not doing that again."

Straw man as fuck. You're attacking a ghost.

Not at all. All the empirical evidence is in: nowhere has Socialism been a good idea. Nowhere. And it's been tried over, and over, and over and over. Tyranny, disaster and death, every time. Anybody who doesn't see that is just not looking at all.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=501868 time=1615566931 user_id=9431]
Not at all. All the empirical evidence is in: nowhere has Socialism been a good idea. Nowhere. And it's been tried over, and over, and over and over. Tyranny, disaster and death, every time. Anybody who doesn't see that is just not looking at all.
[/quote]

Socialism does not imply method. It can succeed or fail based on reasons that have nothing to do with it as an ideology. This is basic. If you want to attack it, first you have to choose a specific ideology to address. Maoism is not Marxism is not Cheism... get it? You're tilting at windmills.

The problem with all versions of socialism that have been tried at scale, which is a small percentage indeed, is that they do not account for that scale effectively, manage resource allocation issues effectively, or have effective checks and balances. How and why are individual problems.

Unlike capitalism, which fails based on the inherent profit motive in all versions of it.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism does not imply method.

Yeah, it does. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawren ... ethods.htm Can you think of a "Socialism" that does not involve collectivism, state ownership of industry and businesses, income distribution from above, singular political control, and so on? Are these not "methods" inherent to Socialism?

The problem with all versions of socialism that have been tried at scale, which is a small percentage indeed, is that they do not account for that scale effectively, manage resource allocation issues effectively, or have effective checks and balances.

It's funny how everything Socialism always does is "never Socialism's fault." At some point -- one considerably earlier than now -- that excuse just turns dusty and blows away.

How do we justify a political arrangement with a 100% record of homicidal disaster, and a 0% track record of success? And what sort of a person would opt for such a system?

[Advocate]

>>Socialism does not imply method.

>Yeah, it does. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawren ... ethods.htm Can you think of a "Socialism" that does not involve collectivism, state ownership of industry and businesses, income distribution from above, singular political control, and so on? Are these not "methods" inherent to Socialism?

You don't English well. Everything you just said is an attribute of socialism, not a method by which to create or apply that idea to society. There are evil and good ways to do any of those things you listed. The point is whoosh on you.

>It's funny how everything Socialism always does is "never Socialism's fault." At some point -- one considerably earlier than now -- that excuse just turns dusty and blows away.

Quite the contrary, anti-socialists like to point to everything Except what socialism is at it's core to try to debunk it. I merely insist that an acknowledgement of what socialism is For must proceed any discussion of How, whether in theory or in practice. And in practice there is a whole lot more going on than the ideology ever intends to encompass.

[henry quirk]

>>Socialism does not imply method.

>Yeah, it does. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lawren ... ethods.htm Can you think of a "Socialism" that does not involve collectivism, state ownership of industry and businesses, income distribution from above, singular political control, and so on? Are these not "methods" inherent to Socialism?

You don't English well. Everything you just said is an attribute of socialism, not a method by which to create or apply that idea to society. There are evil and good ways to do any of those things you listed. The point is whoosh on you.

>It's funny how everything Socialism always does is "never Socialism's fault." At some point -- one considerably earlier than now -- that excuse just turns dusty and blows away.

Quite the contrary, anti-socialists like to point to everything Except what socialism is at it's core to try to debunk it. *I merely insist that an acknowledgement of what socialism is For must proceed any discussion of How, whether in theory or in practice. And in practice there is a whole lot more going on than the ideology ever intends to encompass.

Tell us...

What is socialism for?

What is Socialism for?

What is Maoism for?

What is Marxism for?

How does socialism work?

How does Socialism work?

How does Maoism work?

How does Marxism work?

What is socialism?

What is Socialism?

What is Maoism?

What is Marxism?

[Immanuel Can]

You don't English well.

I think I maybe I English weller than you.

Everything you just said...

Click the link. I'm not the one saying it...Socialists are.

...anti-socialists like to point to everything Except what socialism is at it's core to try to debunk it...

Not at all. I point to Socialism's actual record...100% failure and disaster. It's up to Socialists to try to explain why their system has never succeeded in the past, though tried many, many times, and why it has killed vastly more people than any other single variable in history...over 100 million in the last century alone.

So if you can do that, go ahead.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=501885 time=1615575407 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=501876 time=1615571537 user_id=15238]
You don't English well. [/quote]

:lol: I think I maybe I English weller than you.

[quote]Everything you just said...[/quote]
Click the link. I'm not the one saying it...Socialists are.

[quote]...anti-socialists like to point to everything Except what socialism is at it's core to try to debunk it...[/quote]
Not at all. I point to Socialism's[i] actual record[/i]...100% failure and disaster. It's up to Socialists to try to explain why their system has never succeeded in the past, though tried many, many times, and why it has killed vastly more people than any other single variable in history...over 100 million in the last century alone.

So if you can do that, go ahead.
[/quote]

The inherently bad version of socialism you're attacking is not mine nor accepted by any self-claimed socialist i've ever met. So i find no need for a defense against your contentions.