Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:51 pm
[see this link for essential context. I've missed too much time here to know what has possibly changed.]
You have not understood the actual historical meanings about political definitions and their intents. I suggest you pick up a general introduction to 'political science' (as I have) in order to first get what the terms mean and not what you seem to
feel they mean in light of 'values' (like 'good' or 'evil').
The degree of the extremes are more complex but can be understood as a circle in which the extreme Right meets the extreme Left. The 'socialism' you have bias against exists on both ends. But taken as a term describing what it literally means colloquially, the base of the term is 'social' and where we get also, "society". As such, society opposes the concept of living as animals without formal civilization where struggle for existence is purely Darwinian evolution. And this is what the "Right" generally articulates more favor for in that they want to dismiss a system made by the collection of people -- the community as a whole -- to rule but rather that this community should respect a subset of the whole to rule by merely having some belief that some people are more 'worthy' by Nature (or in your terms, your 'God').
BUT, even if I or others were to agree to the means of survival to the fittest as 'natural', then it should follow that it is ALSO 'natural' that the quantitative numbers of people who manage to rule by whichever means is justified regardless of one's special beliefs. That is, even IF some extreme like Communism is something to be feared, if it HAS the power, it is still abiding by the same rules of the 'Capitalist' in that they too are CAPITALIZING on the nature of numbers to compete against those who capitalize on their claims of unique ownership to parts of this world by using means of
force (like guns or presumed recognition of 'ownership' claims as requiring to be upheld as
natural).
To me and others on the 'social' left, we interpret the nature of NUMBERS of people to rule where the 'antisocial' right believes in permitting rule by FORCE, whether this be by some coinciding fortune of wealth, some written document that might declare some '
promise' to what one 'owns' as more valid, or even one's religious declarations that God has granted them superior virtue to rule for whatever reasons.
Now, no doubt, you may interpret that the Left's use of NUMBERS of people as a force, which I would agree is correct. But what is the alternative of 'force' that you think justifies your rule beyond the ultimatum of using literal weapons that an individual who 'owns' such privilege too can use against those numbers? That is, if 'society' is required to respect your privilege with diminished respect to their own power as based upon numbers of people, on what basis does your idea of
ownership mean if it is NOT necessary to even require society to protect your claims other than by some private means you have to secure it by force that can overwhelm those numbers?
You cannot expect to interpret 'ownership' as a
right if the people disagree by their numbers, regardless of how 'cruel' they could possibly be unless you are expecting some
right to use some form of weapons and/or use of structural defenses (walls) to be the deciding factor of your preferred type of 'force'.
Furthermore, IF you accept a
right to rule by conserving promises of the past who have defined your
right to rule by economic standards, WHICH people should not matter either. In other words, it should not matter if even a dictatorship of those who hate you or your kind should be or become the coincidental NEXT 'owner' class! This means that should some counter-enemy class of a minority against your own 'right' should find some means to steal what WAS your 'own', then THEY are the next 'owner' class that you'd have to accept regardless based on your own acceptance of such declared
right.
If 'theft' of property, for instance, should be paramount, why should those living on Aboriginal territories be permitted to KEEP anything that their own ancestors had to have initially stolen before? Why does your present advantages of a private
right to own be PRIVILEGED over other people who have yet to be able to get justice for their 'theft'?
