Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:18 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:49 am Only stupid fucknuts turn every single motherfucking discussion into a screed against socialism.

There is more than one motivation why they do so.

Some cling to the authority of their social betters i.e. the people who made and edited The Bible, naming these people "God" as if a spirit could tell stories and issue explicit commands. Some of those have expended their life energies in service to this God often , like Church missionaries, doing a lot of good in the process.

Others believe the only good ruling elite is a section of people who deserve to be ruling elites by virtue of their power to make money.

Others who despise welfare socialism are often older people who are afraid of change and want to be ruled by what they believe to be the old traditional ruling elites such as aristocrats, soldiers, and churchmen.

Immanuel Can may well be one of the first group.

could be Mannie just gets that socialists (slavers) are the bad guys

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lambs to the Socialist slaughter.

It frequently happens and includes the most famous Agnus Dei. God never promised us a rose garden.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:03 pm could be Mannie just gets that socialists (slavers) are the bad guys

Now, where's that bloody "thumbs up" emoji when a guy needs it... ?

The Socialists are of two types: the manipulators and the manipulated.

Most of them are the manipulated. Socialist-sympathizers can be created by a few means. One is by appealing to their desire for government to "daddy" them by providing "free" stuff -- which is really stuff that's being extracted from them by means of Socialist economics, then part of it being given back to them as security or minimal benefits of some kind. And these folks are not good at maths, and don't detect what a ponzi scheme that is.

Another way of creating Socialist-sympathizers is to promise them "equality" will finally arrive with Socialism; well-meaning but not-very-bright people buy this one, because they want everybody to be the same, and that forced "equality" is a moral value. I feel sorriest for these folks: they mean well, but they are just too, too trusting, and not very cerebral. They've been overcome by the emotion of empathy and turned off their brains. They think that "wanting the right thing" is enough to secure them against exploitation, and are often desperately willing to continue to believe that, even long after the fact of their being exploited becomes evident. They are passionate about "justice," or "inclusion" or "equity," but don't really think farther with any degree of insight. They are the true "sheep to the slaughter," more than anyone.

In a variation of this, the manipulators can gin up resentment and covetousness, so that the Socialist sheep start to think that all rich people are thieves, and that they are entitled to rob the rich, and to be morally virtuous when they do. Ironically, they fail to realize that on a world scale, it's THEY who are the rich...far richer than folks in the Developing World, even if they live on a fixed income here...so that the rest of the world has, by Socialism, a claim against the Socialist sheep of the First World. But they become filled with feelings of virtue for hating those who have "privileges" they feel they don't. They never consider that some differences among people are actually earned differences, or that hierarchy is also a feature of the natural world, one that can no more be banished than gravity.

The other type of Socialist is the Socialist-manipulators. They are much fewer in number, but write most of the scripts for the rest. They are secretly pragmatists and strategists to increase their own power and prestige; and they realize that the easiest way for them to do this is to convince others to be Socialists, take their money and then pay some of it back to them as a fixed salary. In that way, the Socialist-sheep become permanently dependent on the income they get from the Socialist-manipulators, but the manipulators stay elite both in privileges and power.

Really, Socialism is like what they used to say about a poker game: "if you look around the table and can't spot the sucker...then it's you."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 3:10 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 12:03 pm could be Mannie just gets that socialists (slavers) are the bad guys

Now, where's that bloody "thumbs up" emoji when a guy needs it... ?

The Socialists are of two types: the manipulators and the manipulated.

Most of them are the manipulated. Socialist-sympathizers can be created by a few means. One is by appealing to their desire for government to "daddy" them by providing "free" stuff -- which is really stuff that's being extracted from them by means of Socialist economics, then part of it being given back to them as security or minimal benefits of some kind. And these folks are not good at maths, and don't detect what a ponzi scheme that is.

Another way of creating Socialist-sympathizers is to promise them "equality" will finally arrive with Socialism; well-meaning but not-very-bright people buy this one, because they want everybody to be the same, and that forced "equality" is a moral value. I feel sorriest for these folks: they mean well, but they are just too, too trusting, and not very cerebral. They've been overcome by the emotion of empathy and turned off their brains. They think that "wanting the right thing" is enough to secure them against exploitation, and are often desperately willing to continue to believe that, even long after the fact of their being exploited becomes evident. They are passionate about "justice," or "inclusion" or "equity," but don't really think farther with any degree of insight. They are the true "sheep to the slaughter," more than anyone.

In a variation of this, the manipulators can gin up resentment and covetousness, so that the Socialist sheep start to think that all rich people are thieves, and that they are entitled to rob the rich, and to be morally virtuous when they do. Ironically, they fail to realize that on a world scale, it's THEY who are the rich...far richer than folks in the Developing World, even if they live on a fixed income here...so that the rest of the world has, by Socialism, a claim against the Socialist sheep of the First World. But they become filled with feelings of virtue for hating those who have "privileges" they feel they don't. They never consider that some differences among people are actually earned differences, or that hierarchy is also a feature of the natural world, one that can no more be banished than gravity.

The other type of Socialist is the Socialist-manipulators. They are much fewer in number, but write most of the scripts for the rest. They are secretly pragmatists and strategists to increase their own power and prestige; and they realize that the easiest way for them to do this is to convince others to be Socialists, take their money and then pay some of it back to them as a fixed salary. In that way, the Socialist-sheep become permanently dependent on the income they get from the Socialist-manipulators, but the manipulators stay elite both in privileges and power.

Really, Socialism is like what they used to say about a poker game: "if you look around the table and can't spot the sucker...then it's you."

Then there is no such thing as a 'socialist' by your definition where others use the term. I gave it my best with you and now you are just demonstrating insult to anyone who attempts to argue differently. Maybe you are just being temporarily annoyed and need a break from political discussion? Those 'socialists' monsters you loathe are not here.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:08 pm Then there is no such thing as a 'socialist' by your definition where others use the term.

Funny: they were burning Portland last night. What a strange thing for a pure fiction to be able to do!

They occupied Seattle. They burned Rochester, stormed Minneapolis, stampeded in Baltimore, rioted in LA...these "no such things" of yours certainly do get around, Scott.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:25 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:08 pm Then there is no such thing as a 'socialist' by your definition where others use the term.

Funny: they were burning Portland last night. What a strange thing for a pure fiction to be able to do!

They occupied Seattle. They burned Rochester, stormed Minneapolis, stampeded in Baltimore, rioted in LA...these "no such things" of yours certainly do get around, Scott.

Go complain to 'they' then. You are degrading in your intellectual responses here and making it impossible to presume you can argue further. I presented an excellent case for you that I KNOW you understood but are resisting emotionally. Go back to that example dialogue of two brothers....that one that must have hit home hard enough that you wouldn't even requote it in response!

You also stated that you DO believe in abusive behaviors that impose "buyer beware", the means of placing the onus on those you take advantage of instead of BEING a good and honest person who OWNS how 'they' behave. I don't see you as acting any better than the illusive 'socialist' you have such hatred for based on merely the label alone. Buyer beware, though. So if they are attempting to 'delude' anyone, so-be-it given they are just selling their ideas in action IN your standard way. Let them run their 'free enterprise' right to con others as you believe it fair to be 'free' for your ideas. Let the best views bought survive. What better 'capitalist' skill it should represent for you that the abusive mobs can be so GOOD at getting something for nothing! Imaging the salesmen, for instance, who can trade a mere word for 'free stuff'? That's an inifinity mark up that any capitalist should embrace.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:31 pm ...I presented an excellent case...

So good of you to say so.

You also stated that you DO believe in abusive behaviors

There's nothing "abusive" about telling people to be aware, and not let others fool them. That's called "being an adult."

I don't see you as acting any better than the illusive 'socialist'..

Well, one way is by not being a Socialist. But the other point is that you have not the foggiest idea how I "act." You're making it up again.

Let the best views bought survive.

Let the word salad begin.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:04 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:31 pm ...I presented an excellent case...

So good of you to say so.

You also stated that you DO believe in abusive behaviors

There's nothing "abusive" about telling people to be aware, and not let others fool them. That's called "being an adult."

I don't see you as acting any better than the illusive 'socialist'..

Well, one way is by not being a Socialist. But the other point is that you have not the foggiest idea how I "act." You're making it up again.

Let the best views bought survive.

Let the word salad begin.

But if you continue with this, you are only proving WHY anyone would DARE to protest against the politics of your own views. You are intentionally denying the realities and MALIGNING people abusively as a whole without warrant. Your political definitions and assumptions are not in sync with actual political philosophy other than your actions as demonstrating anti-logical rhetoric of those that want to overthrow democracy for dictatorship.

Scott, if you haven't already, define socialist so we can all be on the same page

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:38 am Scott, if you haven't already, define socialist so we can all be on the same page

Immanuel Can at one point listed some definitions but he cannot interpret the meanings correctly. I take issue with his misappropriating the meanings and associating those who act IN THE NAME of some system's intentional ideal in the way of the opposition's beliefs. If I cannot get this understood, I don't stand a chance.

I don't approve of ANY ideal's means of practicing but explained clearly why I would require choosing the side that competes between social ideas where the overall numbers of DIFFERENCES of ALL ideas prevent power to dominate in fewer hands.

I believe in social services, like universal health care, welfare of the needy, shelter minimals, all the regular public utilities regarding communication and transportation INFRASTRUCTURE (essential media paths that cannot be monopolized by the demands of the private media outlets, libraries, public school education, REGULATORY bodies (policing of private industry for abuses), and public ownership of resources of the Earth, environmental protections, all regular utilities, like garbage, water supplies, a power sources, regular crime-enforcement/harm-prevention policing, and anything that belongs under the banner of civilization that puts PEOPLE ahead of someone's personal claims of what some believe is their 'own' without warrant on an Earth that is not granted acceptance by the people at large.

I also believe that religious 'freedom' should be private to an individual and NOT to be allowed to act against other people's freedoms via laws or even family impositions that penalize members who want the freedom NOT to follow suit.

The Earth is not 'ownable' for a subset of SPECIAL people who are privileged to enslave others and belongs ulimately to us all. I agree with private LIMITED ownership which should entail a minimal right to have ownership of a home and minimal necessities and capped from going beyond a certain amount of value.

Socialism opposes the ant-Socialism of those who want a right to control others, most specifically those without by those with. If anything, people should be permitted what society favors DEMOCRATICALLY regardless of whether I agree to policies or not that favor me beyond what is essential....versus the belief of the special classes of people who believe they should control the masses through REPUBLICAN style represenation (like having people vote for representatives that do can act FREE NOT to represent the will of the people who voted for them....the college of electorates, for instance).

People should always be free to speak but be held ACCOUNTABLE where they lie. Logic/Science and not Relgion should be the means to reason in politics and so separation of Church and State ...extended to special 'cultures' that are arbitrary environmental artistic expressions.

I am only listing here to give you or others a general idea of what I intepret 'socialism' to refer to. Socialism is to people as the Anti-social politics of the Right is to Gods (minus Nature).

Maybe this might at least help better than the word, 'socialism', given it is used on both the Right and Left extremes as descriptive adjectives in their labeled ideologies, imply.

I am center-left and recognize that politics are damned when it favors ANY side without changing it up once in a while.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:20 am But if you continue with this...

Scott, buddy, take a pill.

I've given you the definition of Socialism so general that even the dictionaries cover it. You have a different one, you say...you say "Socialism" just means "for the good of society." It doesn't but I'm not going to argue that. The fact stands that nobody else shares your definition.

As for Socialism, I can point to a 100% record of my description of what it does and causes being right. There are 0% of real-world cases where Socialism has produced the equality, justice, happiness, prosperity and security that its proponents imagine it will. It's a 100% failure, in other words. Doesn't that even make a dent in your confidence in it? If it doesn't, then facts are out the window, for sure.

Meanwhile, I have no objection to people objecting to my views. But let's make it my real views. To be honest, you clearly haven't the faintest idea what they are, because nothing you've attributed to me is right. You're making stuff up, and then imagining I'm the representative of it. But I'm not, and I can't waste my time defending a bunch of empty rhetorical flourishes that in no way represent what I actually stand for. Sorry. If you want to know what I think, ask me. If you just want to make stuff up, well...what's the point? Straw manning doesn't achieve anything.

For example, do you really think I want "to overthrow democracy for dictatorship"? Seriously? You're going to try to pull that one? Nobody can mistake that for anything but what it is: an attempt to demonize your opposition, and to thus be able to avoid putting the hard questions to Socialism that it needs to answer.

As for hating democracy, my mind is quite the opposite, actually, as I've already said: I'm a supporter of democracy, as I've said already, and don't want what Socialism has produced in 100% of the real-world cases...dictatorship. So you've got it precisely backwards.

Look, Scott...I know you're irritated. I shot your horse. You were planning to ride along on your Socialism, and now it's dead. But your horse was dangerous anyway. You needed a new one. So really, I did you favour; I at least alerted you to the fact that you were going to need a new horse, and that you could get one before the last one killed you.

So I did you a favour by shooting your Socialism. You're welcome.

But hey, let's keep it civil, eh?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 3:41 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:20 am But if you continue with this...

Scott, buddy, take a pill.

I've given you the definition of Socialism so general that even the dictionaries cover it. You have a different one, you say...you say "Socialism" just means "for the good of society." It doesn't but I'm not going to argue that. The fact stands that nobody else shares your definition.

As for Socialism, I can point to a 100% record of my description of what it does and causes being right. There are 0% of real-world cases where Socialism has produced the equality, justice, happiness, prosperity and security that its proponents imagine it will. It's a 100% failure, in other words. Doesn't that even make a dent in your confidence in it? If it doesn't, then facts are out the window, for sure.

Meanwhile, I have no objection to people objecting to my views. But let's make it my real views. To be honest, you clearly haven't the faintest idea what they are, because nothing you've attributed to me is right. You're making stuff up, and then imagining I'm the representative of it. But I'm not, and I can't waste my time defending a bunch of empty rhetorical flourishes that in no way represent what I actually stand for. Sorry. If you want to know what I think, ask me. If you just want to make stuff up, well...what's the point? Straw manning doesn't achieve anything.

For example, do you really think I want "to overthrow democracy for dictatorship"? Seriously? You're going to try to pull that one? Nobody can mistake that for anything but what it is: an attempt to demonize your opposition, and to thus be able to avoid putting the hard questions to Socialism that it needs to answer.

As for hating democracy, my mind is quite the opposite, actually, as I've already said: I'm a supporter of democracy, as I've said already, and don't want what Socialism has produced in 100% of the real-world cases...dictatorship. So you've got it precisely backwards.

But hey, keep it civil, eh?

First off, I actually GET INVOLVED in my politics locally and intimately. I even helped get my MLA representative of our 'social democratic' party (NDP) here get elected, met most of the leaders; I've gone to conventions of VARIOUS cultural meets, and talk to ALL the varying different politicians of different parties.

One of the most interesting things that I was interested in is how those like Hilter were able to lead people the way he did and so studied a lot on HOW they did this. I KNOW what I'm talking about and you are just coming across as though I'm some newbie with some trivial blind knowledge about what the issues are and how the systems operate. I also know both the American and Canadian systems to a great degree, studied those old philosophical works involving politics, lots and lots of history, etc.

I studied general sociology texts, branched off into psychology, social psychology, politics, and religion. I even studied general economics. And of what I haven't studied, I keep as references for when I'd like to dig deeper. [Although politics is NOT something I care for, I do so out of necessity to understand a be a part of those contributing to the understandings of them.

I've studied Evolution, and know that most of the reason for the rash decisions of the early last century are due to how many were pulling away from religion and begun to figure out novel political IDEALS of which they all went crazy. The world wars were more about TESTING technologies of war and trying to be the countries that were all trying to get in quick and fast on dominating the controlling grounds of world power. This included ALL political party ideals.

My own province of Saskatchewan, Canada, and its original idea of successful Social Health care concepts that came from Tommy Douglas of my NDP party here.

I don't need to have to spell things out here because I don't assume people require a resume to be competent in arguing and give all people the benefit of the doubt regardless of which ideology or religion they come from.

But I also know logic and RHETORIC more formally and see that most people default to using that far easier than logic without any background. You're own rhetoric is due to your own social surroundings and influence that I don't think you are used to stepping outside of as I am. I get shit by different people for presuming that I must be siding with the enemy when I defend others' sides from their perspective. I would defend even Trump's behavior knowning HOW and WHY he intentionally behaves as he does when I'm around Left-wing friends and the opposite, as I am here and now with you defending the meaning of the Socialists....all because I believe that one has to be FAIR to UNDERSTAND the actual ideologies in light of where they are coming from, not simply from where I prefer.

We are here in a thread that begun on 'fascism' and most, even those favoring them, don't realize THAT they believe in the tenets of its beliefs because they don't have a reference point other than the STEREOTYPES of history.

"Socialism" is a loose class description that crosses the left-right spectra because ALL countries practice and HAVE practiced it from the beginning of poltics as soon as they begun setting up settled lives in fixed places. They are no less 'evil' than any other and have very REAL reasons for selecting the poltical sides they are....most notably and common are one's mere 'class' in economic terms, their race, cultures, and most definitely religion.

I disagree with ANY protests that use violence but know that where the politics are strong, it gives the ROGUE population excuses to take advantage of it. The riots in Charlottesville, Viginia were RIGHT-WING extremists, including the apparently named, "Antifascists", contrary to their inablility to notice.

All the terrorists of the 9/11 attacks are pro-RIGHT wing, meaning they believe in an 'automy' from control of a federal-headed governments, are extreme literalists with respect to their home religions, of which in North America, are the fundamentalists, evangelizing "Christians", all the cults, like David Koresh, the KKK, gangs everywhere, biker or street; You keep dictating that 'Socialism' is some evil, including Karl Marx, who if you read, you'd discover it is not merely that small 'manifesto' of action that is also in part due to Engles. Karl Marx argued for an ideal 'scientific' means of making a system that could he thought the "Communism" would be the GOAL of a society that YOU want: free from government imposed rule. The Right-wing ideals aimed for the same but opted to favor the SPECIFIC clan, of which 'fascism' and 'National Socialism' were about. The 'socialism' in the Nazi party's particular idea was about favoring FAMILY and ones' genetic relatives and immaturely borrowed Spensor's intrepretation of Darwin's evolution as "the fittest survives" where 'fit' to these people was translated to mean HEALTHY AND GOOD, not merely 'survives in the environment without concern for value.'

All politics world wide right NOW are practicing a world 'socialism' in regards to this Covid-19 thing of which if the Right-wingers had their way, they'd want it scrapped and ignored because they are losing money for not being able to profit like they normally do.

I listed some of those things above because then you might at least agree that they are some of yours too. The main division in politics that define the left-right system are spelled out in the way the OLD wealth classes want to maintain their power and be free from ANY laws that hold them accountable for cheating, the major means of how profiting operates. The left are generally the artists and dreamers (most of our entertainment world) whom you should question why they would want that given the apparent 'dullness' of those abusive systems of the "Communist/Socialist" ideals.

The next difference is to which KIND of freedoms are most important, not that they both don't share the same views. The Right demands 'freedom to trade WITHOUT being policed"; the Left demands 'freedom to BE what one wants to be WITHOUT being policed.'

Lots of contradictions exist in all views. Like, why does your side favor extreme religious literal intrpretations of their religions BUT contradictorily favor the belief in the most cruel forms of economic Darwinism? If they are such sticklers on 'correct' behavior, why are they the ones who believe in the kinds of behaviors that the street husslers and criminals believe? On the Left, why do they seem to want 'freedom' to behave, like to smoke weed or have a sex change when they also have a tendency to use shut-out tactics of those who have different opinions in professional positions?

I am not going in blind on these issues but do NOT see any ideal system except for at least HAVING one. To those on the 'right', they favor militarism, death penalty [and contradictorily pro-life?](I know being of just such a family and of things I mentioned to you before); on the 'left', they favor the more shallow emotional coddling that just as much contributes to stupidity as it contradictorily supports things like science.

This thread and any on National Socialism are often bitter to point out these as "right" wing because they believe in PRIVATE PROPERTY, CULTIVATING RELIGIOUS LITERALISM, STRONG_ARM COMPETITION WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS and SMALL SIZED governments (which default to lend themselves to dictators). The "left" believes in PUBLIC PROPERTY, FREE RELIGIOUS INTERPRETED BELIEVES that are not 'literal', PASSIVE-ETIQUETTE_BASED Competition WITH LIMITATIONS, and LARGER SIZED systems, not for the sake of intentionally creating the problems that are created due to bureacracy but to find a system that is organized to deal with things that Churches used to do, those 'socialist' EXTENSIONS within government.

The Right has the EASIER position because when they TEAR DOWN laws and intend to destroy the capacity of the system to monitor the 'white collar' crimes and the 'cult crimes' that they are more familiar with. They also jail more people with the emphasis on the 'stupid' criminal but not the 'intellectual white collar ones'. The Left cannot formulate a successful system most of the time because they believe in introducing new areas of goverment that require very long periods of time but politics favors 'expedience. As all it takes is one person to terrorize and create chaos, the Right follows suit when they can easily dismantle programs with one signature.

The reasons I and society as a whole, favor the socialism more isn't because they want to have less freedom but because they LACK the freedoms by default. The wealth cannot exist without the majority to be at the bottom of the pyramid.

Because of HOW even your side favors keeping OTHER PEOPLE's babies alive (with the preference to also NOT give the parents social welfare ??) population growth that occurs cannot be controlled without things like these occasional accidents of nature, like pandemics or natural disasters, and for the wealthiest on the right, the ECOCOMIC benefits of war, and preferential death penalties for someone getting cause smoking pot or jerking off or being gay....all OTHER people's sacrifices ...er...scapegoats (given they are not the ones' voluntarily 'sacrificing'.

Our Western world intentionally makes those 'socialists' systems suffer hard and one of the MAJOR reasons those systems turn into despotic systems that are only 'socialist' in name. But here's something you may not know about the general socialism systems:...they are REPUBLICAN forms of DEMOCRACY to a stronger degree than either of the Western extremes. [similar to the Athenian democracy of ancient Greece]

I'm actually at odds with more of everyone of each side for the contradictions and cannot see a way that can ever work. As animals, we are no different than the bacteria, or worse, VIRUSES, like Covid, in which we will end up eating up all the best of the world to the point there will be NO way to recover. Why does your side favor MORE people to be born while the left LESS? ...another set of contradictions when you recognize they favor the opposite in government involvement of its citizens.

I am not against you as a person but do not like lying in the least, not even to save oneself! But why? Shouldn't I, being without religion, just not give a shit and just figure out how to selfishly maximize profit too? If I took such advice in practice, watch out, because I could rule the world! But I wouldn't.

I think you get the point. But don't mistaken me for somepne who isn't qualified to know the distinctions of political ideologies. They all have their weakness ingrained in the wild animal that still takes precedence over our head. I don't look at those failures on the Right like you do on the Left because I always think that each had their reasons or delusions, including the very religions that I attack on logical grounds. When I tackle the faults online, believe it or not, I hardly find ANY 'socialists' in these forums because they likely cannot afford the luxury and are afraid of upsetting or being upset easily. So the Right is going to end up being who I target more for being a relative minority where they cannot defend themselves here.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 1:44 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 12:38 am Scott, if you haven't already, define socialist so we can all be on the same page

Immanuel Can at one point listed some definitions but he cannot interpret the meanings correctly. I take issue with his misappropriating the meanings and associating those who act IN THE NAME of some system's intentional ideal in the way of the opposition's beliefs. If I cannot get this understood, I don't stand a chance.

I don't approve of ANY ideal's means of practicing but explained clearly why I would require choosing the side that competes between social ideas where the overall numbers of DIFFERENCES of ALL ideas prevent power to dominate in fewer hands.

I believe in social services, like universal health care, welfare of the needy, shelter minimals, all the regular public utilities regarding communication and transportation INFRASTRUCTURE (essential media paths that cannot be monopolized by the demands of the private media outlets, libraries, public school education, REGULATORY bodies (policing of private industry for abuses), and public ownership of resources of the Earth, environmental protections, all regular utilities, like garbage, water supplies, a power sources, regular crime-enforcement/harm-prevention policing, and anything that belongs under the banner of civilization that puts PEOPLE ahead of someone's personal claims of what some believe is their 'own' without warrant on an Earth that is not granted acceptance by the people at large.

I also believe that religious 'freedom' should be private to an individual and NOT to be allowed to act against other people's freedoms via laws or even family impositions that penalize members who want the freedom NOT to follow suit.

The Earth is not 'ownable' for a subset of SPECIAL people who are privileged to enslave others and belongs ulimately to us all. I agree with private LIMITED ownership which should entail a minimal right to have ownership of a home and minimal necessities and capped from going beyond a certain amount of value.

Socialism opposes the ant-Socialism of those who want a right to control others, most specifically those without by those with. If anything, people should be permitted what society favors DEMOCRATICALLY regardless of whether I agree to policies or not that favor me beyond what is essential....versus the belief of the special classes of people who believe they should control the masses through REPUBLICAN style represenation (like having people vote for representatives that do can act FREE NOT to represent the will of the people who voted for them....the college of electorates, for instance).

People should always be free to speak but be held ACCOUNTABLE where they lie. Logic/Science and not Relgion should be the means to reason in politics and so separation of Church and State ...extended to special 'cultures' that are arbitrary environmental artistic expressions.

I am only listing here to give you or others a general idea of what I intepret 'socialism' to refer to. Socialism is to people as the Anti-social politics of the Right is to Gods (minus Nature).

Maybe this might at least help better than the word, 'socialism', given it is used on both the Right and Left extremes as descriptive adjectives in their labeled ideologies, imply.

I am center-left and recognize that politics are damned when it favors ANY side without changing it up once in a while.

no offense, scott, but I ain't lookin' for a laundry list of what you believe (I'll address the specifics of what you believe in another post)...no, I'm just lookin' for a simple definition of socialist...there are several and I wanna know which one you find acceptable

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 6:59 am One of the most interesting things that I was interested in is how those like Hilter were able to lead people the way he did and so studied a lot on HOW they did this.

Then you know that they were Called "National Socialists," as well. And you know that they used Antifa style methods, called the "brownshirts" to beat down their opposition. You know about Kristelnacht and the scapegoating of the Jews. You know about the Nazi subverting of the electoral process, about how they centralized government and socialized the economy, and made the Nazi party the only show in town.

All of that you know, you say. Okay.

Guess what? I know that history too.

I've studied Evolution, and know that most of the reason for the rash decisions of the early last century are due to how many were pulling away from religion and begun to figure out novel political IDEALS of which they all went crazy.

Actually, that's not what happened at all. Darwin was an 18th Century figure, and the erosion of general religious believe in the West was well underway by the time he was writing. By the time the 20th Century rolled around, there were no longer any "religious" wars of any scale, none outside of, say the Islamists and people like them. WW 1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, The Cold War, and so on, which produced the huge amount of death and destruction through the 20th Centuries were all ideological, not religious. And Socialism was the most significant contributor to all of them.

My own province of Saskatchewan, Canada, and its original idea of successful Social Health care concepts that came from Tommy Douglas of my NDP party here.

You're correct. But the original NDP was primarily Christian. Tommy Douglas was a baptist minister. And if you know economics, you'll also know that socialized medicine is far and away the biggest drain on your public finds, more than double the budget of the nearest competitor, education, and is bankrupting Canada. You'll know of wait lines so long that people die or fall to new conditions because they can't get basic treatment as soon as they need it. And while you also know that nobody's put into the poor house in Canada by their medical bills, you'll also know that the current system is unsustainable.

But I also know logic and RHETORIC

As do I.

We are here in a thread that begun on 'fascism'

Yes. And the first fact any person needs to know about Fascism is what it really is. It's National Socialism.

"Socialism" is a loose class description...

No, it's an ideology. It's a belief about economics, derived from a belief about human nature, and what one can expect from trusting others.

The riots in Charlottesville...

You point to the one march in Charlottesville. I point to months of destruction in places like Portland, Seattle, LA, Baltimore, Rochester, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Kenosha...and on, and on, and on. It's not only not equivalent; it isn't remotely close.

All the terrorists of the 9/11 attacks are pro-RIGHT wing

Absurdly wrong. You are trying to group Islamists with democratic conservatives? Patently ridiculous. Utterly unbelievable.

Why do you think the 9-11 terrorists chose the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as their targets? Do you think it was because those buildings were such icons of Socialism? Seriously, Scott...think, man, think.

...are the fundamentalists, evangelizing "Christians"

Okay, now you've gone five-star loony. Did you see the evangelicals dancing in the streets at 9-11?

...the KKK,

You know, of course, that the KKK was 100% created by the Southern Democrats, don't you? And you know that every slave-owner in the US, and all the governors that fought to keep Segregation were Democrats, don't you? Don't you? It's true.

Karl Marx, who if you read...

I have Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto right here. If you want to discuss it, let's go.

All politics world wide right NOW are practicing a world 'socialism' in regards to this Covid-19 thing of which if the Right-wingers had their way, they'd want it scrapped and ignored because they are losing money for not being able to profit like they normally do.

It hasn't got to do with profit. It has to do with whether or not big government should be allowed to take away the rights of private citizens and cripple their economies, when the actual data doesn't support that the COVID crisis is serious enough to warrant it.

Even Klaus Schwab, the most celebrated of the Socialists and biggest proponent of the COVID panic admits in his book that COVID is actually, by historical and world standards, a "mild" pandemic, not capable of sustaining the panic it has aroused. You'd know that if you read his book, COVID 19: The Great Reset. I have that one here too, by the way.

Lots of contradictions exist in all views.

Contradictions don't exist in coherent views. Questions may remain, issues may need to be settled, further information may be required in all views; but outright contradiction is proof of incoherence.

Like, why does your side...

You don't have the foggiest idea what I think.

I am not going in blind on these issues but do NOT see any ideal system except for at least HAVING one.

Having a government is necessary, sure. But there's a lot of debate over what form it should take. Socialism is but one option among many available, and probably the very worst one, apart from hardcore Communism.

...as "right" wing because they believe in...

You don't know what I believe. You don't know what "right wing" even means. You actually imagine it means National Socialist, Fascist.

The reasons I and society as a whole, favor the socialism more isn't because they want to have less freedom

Yeah, but they do. That's what you get with big, comprehensive government.

The wealth cannot exist without the majority to be at the bottom of the pyramid.

That's actually not even remotely true. It was, perhaps, true of some old, long-defunct systems like monarchy or aristocracy. It's not true today. In fact, prior to the COVID lockdown, we were well on the way to eliminating world poverty. See: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

But I get where you're coming from, Scott. If I guess right, I'd say you've had a hard life. And you're hopeful that somebody will come along and make it better. You're hoping the government will do it, because, probably, you can't think of anybody else who will. That makes Socialism the most obvious choice for you.

Unfortunately, that's not what the government ever does. You're headed for disappointment, I'm afraid. And it's not what Socialism ever yields. Sorry. It never has, and you can be sure it never will. 100% is a nasty statistic to swim upstream against.

Because of HOW even your side favors keeping OTHER PEOPLE's babies alive...

Babies don't "belong" to people, Sport. They are the responsibility of their parents, and are not their property, their chattels and their baggage. They cannot dispose of human life like a bag of garbage. And if they do, they're just evil.

Human beings are infinitely valuable. To murder one is a vile act. To murder a child is an action worthy of the Third Reich.

Our Western world intentionally makes those 'socialists' systems suffer hard

Totally ridiculous. We do no such thing. And has it never occurred to you that if Socialist practices were economically robust, Socialism would soon eliminate Capitalism, instead of having to depend on Capitalism to shore up its failing program, as in Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark, or China...

I am not against you as a person, but do not like lying in the least,

Then why do you like Socialists? They don''t keep one economic or human rights promise they ever make. Or did you mean to accuse me of lying, there?

Maybe you should clarify.

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=488119 time=1609954113 user_id=9431]
[/quote]

Whatever ways people are flawed take root in any form of government. Socialism is not to be called out for people misusing it as they do any system. But more to the point, a state of any kind is more efficient, in theory, than allowing individuals to muck things up separately, which will Always externalize most of the costs. At least in a government there's a single group to focus your concerns on.