No, Communism is about OWNERSHIP of property and production. The 'government' is an institute of management that evolved BY people for the common needs of themselves. If it is NOT owned by the people, it is not 'democratic' but a system run by SELECT people in power who CREATE AND FIX the laws FOR the 'subjects', like an authoritative system of 'private owners of society who do not require accountability to its slaves.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:47 pmThe term 'democrat' refers to those who believe that a GOVERNMENT is something OWNED by ALL the people,
Sorry; that's a "Communist," not a "democrat." You've got to get your terms right.
I don't deem anybody "deplorable." That was a term coined by Hillary Clinton, actually, and she used it to describe Trump voters. [/quote]...the majority you deem are the "deplorables".
But you do if you interpret society needs a system that controls its subjects by some SELECT people who merely DECLARE they 'own' the world privately with superior authority over those born without. You 'deplore' the menial slave who dares to think they should receive ANY part of the world they have not been granted inheritance to or have SERVED UNDER the superior authority of arbitrary rulers. One who LACKS 'ownership' by you do not deserve a 'handout' regardless of whether your parents handed out to you any comfort or good fortune in your life. You pretend not to see the problem of acceleration towards MORE wealth that money gives as an unfair advantage while it means that those without inheritance have a relative constant rate of failure requiring ever more energy just to get fed without even a chance to save anything to even have the ELIGIBILITY to participate in wealth.
You ignore that wealth permits those with it to FAIL 1000 times without consequences while the poor sucker only gets 1 chance to FAIL before being locked out of eligibility to succeed. Your ideal economy is a pyramid scheme that has those on the top remaining there by their power to exploit those most effectively at the bottom.
I'll wait until you can prove that you even know the difference. What does 'supremacist' mean to you?Which ones? Could you point them out?The White Supremacists
Which ones? Could you point them out?... Meanwhile, Antifa and BLM allign with the Left, and the former is decidedly fascistic, and the latter is Communist by confession of its originators. Nice.... do not allign with the liberal left as they ALL interpret them as 'commies'.
Yet, my presence AS someone on the 'Left' doesn't prove to you that such beliefs are not universal? Also, is there NOTHING that the 'Right' would cancel? ...like one's right to have an abortion? ....like ones' right to choose to be gay?....like ones' literal rights as a person to OWN the very Earth they are born on simply for being born of parents who have nothing to pass on? ...like one's right as an 'owner' to evict someone arbitrarily where no laws of non-owning persons exist to protect their rights to ignore the eviction? ...like your 'right' to cancel people who are forced to live on owned lands to a 'free' life should they not suck your dick? ...like your preferred means to imprison those who dare to challenge what is supposedly your 'own' regardless of their welfare and equal privilege? ... like your right to conveniently leave out the truth about the fact that you get ahead by deceiving others in order to profit? ... ...I don't agree with censorship, for instance,
Well, then, I'm glad. But you're now out of step with the "cancel culture" of the Left.
If you don't advocate the tactics of the Right that define it, then maybe you are on the Left but confused? The 'in principle' factors are things like the belief that it is alright to exploit or decieve as a matter of normal business profiteering.I don't. And I have not advocated those tactics.If you wanted to defeat the abuses you accuse of on the left, why use the very tactics that SPECIFICALLY abuse in principle and practice?
For example, the terms of 'agreements' that consumers are forced to 'accept' when some industry class acts ubiquitously to behave in sync with each other to take advantage of the powers of their collective supply monopoly. In your government ideal, no regulators (a type of 'police') exist to prevent the 'owners' of this industry to be exploitative. Do you think that it is fair to exploit the means of control over some supply as a means to demand a higher than 'fair' tit-for-tat price because the demand for it is high?
"no longer"? You are right that there are many on the Left like this. But I already explained that the vast majority of people associate in groups regardless of which side you are on but that the variation that exists on the Left cancels out their capacity to rule in a monopolistic way that those with present wealth on the Right CAN.The Left no longer stands for freedoms, actually. They may have at one time; they don't now. And I actually don't believe in limiting ANY freedoms, short of one of them causing specific and serious harm to others...so that shoe just doesn't fit....they believe in limiting the freedoms that the LEFT stands for.
The reason for the rise in Left-wing Conservative behavior is due to the isolation that the cell phone and internet has caused and to the sets of prior disenfrancized and discriminated classes of people who are freshly empowered and are reacting upon. The feminists for instance, are split among themselves about whether they should fight for equality or demand retribution against the the opposite extremes. But given the isolation and novelty, the tendency of those with the view of 'conservative' style beliefs on the Left are empowered more and believe they NEED to be forceful above and beyond, ....in the same way one on the Right might interpret it their right to exploit financial opportunities by overselling their product's value for profit.
The major harms that are caused by the extremes are more often due to what is HIDDEN in clearly direct forms. These are harder to combat where they exist on the Right because the principle of 'self' interest supports the idea of taking advantage of opportunities that exist where they exist AND where they are less easy to impossible to prove accountably. Where the Right places emphasis on favoring power over others by economic standards, the Left emphasizes power to favor people standards, particularly of 'liberating' those who normally don't get a chance. While it also has to include the abusive selfish interests of those 'liberated', not all liberated people are abusive. But you'll get those who are to stand out now where before they were hidden.
If all people are equally good as they are bad, then regardless, the side that favors more variation of PEOPLE that includes the same percentage of those who would do bad are going to be more 'free' than the side that simply favors the trivial part of all of us that enhances greed as its sole motivator.
The prison example illustrates a sample of "All people 'evil' in some crowd". All people have equal tendencies to be both good and bad. The point was that the Left provides SOCIAL variation where the Right only sees ECONOMIC variation. And so if you are 'economically' challenged, the social side would more likely than not help those independent of cultural associations to rise out of impoverished states and these alter their social appeal as they do so. If you are poor, you lose on the Right unless you have some social affliation of those who are defaulted to being wealthy. But if you also lack the social affliations on the side that favor economics, you are a loser in light of both economics and social standing. So, when isolated (independent of others culturally and/or economically), the Left still is the place that can improve their conditions.If ALL people are 'evil' in some crowd, like in a prison environment for instance, AND you are an individual with NO affiliation to any group, you lose by all regardless.
The world is not composed of prison gangs, Scott. And I hope you don't think it is. In North America, it's composed of free individuals, who ideally place strict limits on the power of the government they choose to harm any individual, and hedge themselves about with rights that even the State cannot legitimately violate. That's what the American experiment was all about, wasn't it?
The reason you see mostly white people on the Right is because of the accidents of fortunes of the past relate most favorably to whites for having a prior economic dominance before cultural mixing. But it certainly does not favor one who is white to BE on the Right AND without wealth. This is where you get your strengthening of angry whites who, if not intentionally abusive initially, become so as they get scapegoated by the wealth their in the same way because that side prioritizes wealth as what is virtuous. The angry Left who act out as Social Warriers against whites (and males) there, target the Right's conservatives who favor traditional anti-liberal sentiment. Their errors that harm the whites (and males) are also EQUAL on both sides but are 'saved' by those on the Left who are NOT. The Left is, in principle fair to all people even if in contempory practice it may not be. This is a phase that needs cooling of the extremes there that time will diminish.
In contrast, whites (or males) may not be more 'favored' in principle on the Right (assuming non-supremists) but requires that they accept a system that doesn't care for them economically either if they cannot do it on their own. So a poor male white, for instance, still has the principles on the Left that favor their survival even with discrimating people because they can at least get social assistances where they suffer the most. The Right doesn't believe in 'social' assistances and so the people there either have to starve, work harder for less than their counterparts on the Left, or get angry and blow up with hazardous effects.
You know nothing! Have you been to either of those places, chum? Do you know the first thing about either?
