Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:38 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:41 pm
...assuming that fascism is a 'Left-of-center' ideal. If you believe this YOU require demonstrating proof of this interpretation.
I already did. Did you not read that?
Here's proof of your deception in practice. By leaving out the context, you intentionally fake my quote as asserting fascism is "left-of-center'. I did not assert this and you know it or would not have half quoted that sentence.
The Nazis are "National Socialists." Look it up: you'll see I'm correct.
PROVIDE your sources, please. Your the one claiming this, not me. It is you who requires proving your deluded interpretation is conventional.
Here is merely ONE source, the Washington Post, on just a quick search on Google, that expands upon your deception:
The Right Needs to Stop Falsely Claiming that Nazis were Socialists
Now do your fucking homework. You are not talking to your flock here. You can save your rhetoric for those of your flock you intentionally think are dumb enough to agree.
I have no "bias" against Socialism, Scott...I just know what Socialism has invariably done. So do you, if you know either history or political philosophy at all.
If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*)
It is working NOW...
Where? Name a place.
Another intentional insufficent quote. You are clearly intentionally lying and NOT merely playing dumb. HOW do you think you could possibly get me or others to EVER trust you when you behave like this? You are actually SELLING the 'socialist' cause by demonstrating why you cannot be trusted. You cannot even escape this by now declaring a lapse of stupidity down the road. [Good thing you are merely hiding behind anoymity here!
]
You defend a system that diminishes the means of government
It's the opposite. I defend a system that prevents government from becoming bloated, inefficient and then dictatorial.
You're too trusting of government, Scott. Governments are made of corruptible human beings; and the bigger they are, the more corrupt they get. That's how it goes every time.
If governments are untrusting, placing LESS people in control of it only enables those few to be able to successfully corrupt with better force. You seem to be implying that a mono-archy (dicatatorship) is better than one with many (a 'democracy') because more people managing the masses is 'bloated'. I'll accept 'bloat' over totalitarianism any day.
Capitalism is a system that permits unlimited means of power
No, it's not. It's an economic model, not a government model. And it's the only thing that saved Socialist China from economic collapse, actually.
...if you LEAVE out restricting rules against OWNERSHIP privileges, society would advance better.
Did you mean to say this, Scott? I think maybe you meant to assert the opposite. But it would be wrong either way.
I said it correct; you are likely interpreting it incorrectly. But what could your interpretation be? This says that government SHOULD make laws restricting 'ownership privileges'. There is no reason why Billionaires should exist. They are only able to do so by how they are able to get away with deceptive acts that have no laws that prevent such abuse.
"Consent of the governed."
Force is for Socialists and other kinds of Fascists. Democracy holds that the people are competent to decide their own governance, and to hold the governors accountable.
Is it 'consent' if only the wealthy...
That's not democracy. That's aristocracy.
How do you even think in principle that a government that eliminates means to police those who 'capitalize' on opportunistic behaviors is 'democratic'? Oh right,...the majority must be criminal!?
An 'aristocracy' DEMANDS economic freedom, not social freedom, because they 'own' the economy. The aristocracy is by default 'conservative' and are not socialists. A 'socialist' favors the masses. Why would they prefer to feed the poor or heal the sick free of charge via social welfare if they were so 'anti-democratic'?
China IS an example by contrast of a system that DOES demonstrate this as relatively sucessful.
It's only success came when it abandoned Socialist economics and went "Red Capitalist." That should tell you something.
I stand in the middle but lean to the left. All systems become abusive if they remain 'conserved' for any length of time. That is how a "Communist" labeled country like North Korea is able to become ANTI-Communist in practice! [Note the Koreans, North and South, throughout history are 'buffer' zones for China by Nationalists elsewhere and why China (and the West) left them both as is.]
The middle ground IS necessary and CHANGE (ie...progress) is required to KEEP governments from settling comfortably for too long. The left is in PRINCIPLE, "liberal" and "progressive" and why I lean my trust there regardless of the nature of 'evil' that exists in all people. All types of systems fail when they leave things the same because there is a tendency for the original 'parents' of the initial system to eventually pass on the system to their 'own' children who become spoiled brats who lack the same suffering conditions that their parent-class had reason to change in the first place. So the tendency to all systems when left alone become capitalist laissez faire style systems that turn the 'public servants' into 'public dictators'.
... John Locke showed ...(t)he protection of personal property is a primary right.
"Personal property" is also protected in the socialist environment.
You don't know what Socialism is, if you think that.
Your declared opinion does not matter. Socialism is only the INCLUSION of government roles that serve the needs of those who are unable to get a fair start. It attempts to draw a MINIMUM means to grant 'ownership' to those disenfrancized for not fault of their own. It doesn't require one be against 'private capital' to some degree.
I clearly laid out how the concept of 'ownership' is artificial...
Locke showed that it's not.
Stated by your opinion without establishing a proof. WHY do you think this? WHAT was his argument IN YOUR WORDS?
"Own" is the root of "ownership". How is it not true that the Earth is not rightfully ALL people's
own? If anyone does not own this Earth in any part, are they aliens who 'float' upon this world unqualified to opine for not having the privilege to be FREE to do what they want for lacking a right to call it theirs too? "Ownership" is an artificial GOVERNMENT-backed formula that permits those who 'own' to have certain freedoms over and above others uniquely. It doesn't imply that it has to be 'absolute' as many are deluded into thinking because it is DEFINED by the system that granted them the protection to KEEP it in their power. It also doesn't care about which 'government' authority is opting to assign 'ownership'. So, when the Nazis took lands and property from the Jews, for instance, that system's government decreed what is permitted to be their 'own'. But just because the present system PERMITS this, it doesn't have any meaning without the means to ENFORCE those rights. That is, "ownership" is NOT intrinsically just because it depends on the system that allows that label to be applied, regardless of how potentially cruel or not.
...the capitalist believes in a 'right' to own BEYOND one's own person and their needs....
Wealth is created by labour, personal enterprise, personal risk, and ingenuity. Those are things the individual brings to the equation. Government, by contrast, produces no wealth.
Everybody has a right to be responsible to own and dispense whatever they have morally earned. Nobody has a right to a "free lunch," or to taking the fruits of other peoples' labour away by force...which is what Socialism entails.
The FIRST fact is that at some point, some human peed upon some land and said, this is MINE! It has no meaning if others could overpower that person's declaration. So the initial stage of ownership requires a 'claim' without justice other than that they were there first.
Also, you ignored the point I made about the Aboriginals. Their FIRST claims were ignored and proves that the inital means of 'ownership' is merely artificial. Many North American Aboriginals were TRANSIENT 'owners', meaning that they only had the belief in claiming 'ownership' as whichever place they were in. The conflict against them used this coincidental difference in civil-settlement evolution to actually STEAL their land by merely declaring 'ownership' to lands when the Natives were away. How is this not theft, for instance, given it intentionally EXPLOITED the difference in evolutionary stage, no different than stealing candy from a baby.
The second stage of 'ownership' is either due to TRADING that initial claim by monetizing it or passing it on (through inheritance claims). ONLY those who had NO initial ownership are required to LABOR. The labor is paid by their landowners though. So should they demand to be paid fair, the owner class uses their advantage of power as a force that 'enslaves' those without to work hard for the least expected income. If they challenged this, the owner just kicks them as they are down and 'hires' someone else who will accept the least energy as payment for the most energy in their favor.
Many CAN 'earn'. But most still come from the middle to upper classes by children of parents who owned. Those who lacked ownership, lacked anything to pass on to their children, AND raised their children in relatively SICK conditions that those from the middle-to-upper classes lack. So they are doubly penalized and require an impossible means to get ENTRY into the system other than by the very EXPLOITERS who manage to keep them from ESTABLISHING ground (something that takes a few generations of manageable survival and luck.) There is a 'ghetto' effect that taints those IN larger communities of impoverishment whereby their own kin of similar impoverishment act like birds that peck other chicks that have even the trivialist of wounds. This is the major reason for a NEED of some "socialism".
The alternative of 'conserving' power in the hands of those who have the wealth to maintain government controls, is for the masses to revolt in anger (and hunger). Try not feeding your pet dog regardless of how often it complains, and I assure you, it will go mad! Socialism helps to reduce this angst by providing AT LEAST something to enable those on the bottom to have a chance.
So, no, "socialism" is not the
evil devious concept you assume it is. But when you KEEP them down for longer periods until they blow up, you are contributing to WHY many countries that have tried 'socialist' systems (including even the National Socialists where they existed from dire conditions) to BECOME the very threat you interpret them to be. You require permitting leniency to those who suffer as well as finding means to provide incentive rewards via some capitialist ideas.
Back to the 'fascist'/National-socialist forms, these come from the 'right' because they are the concentrated class of the poor of those who are also the privileged class. If the dominating present population of the wealth belongs to Japanese, say, then the poor Japanese on that side will be the ones who become more interested in 'fascism'. But the 'fascist' governments are created and endorced by the discriminating wealth of that class who would rather favor their own race/sex/class of poor rather than ALL the poor equally. This is why they are defined as "right" wing. They are formed and designed by those on the Right who utilize cultural purity as their reason for favoring 'capitalistic' ideals. They do NOT believe in UNIVERSAL social systems but rather PRIVATE select social systems. They favor their own 'pets' over the concern of the welfare of even other people, where 'pets' here, is a reference to their own racially related kin.