European Union: the lounge-loving and elitist Left has been defeated

[Magic Man]

Yes they are. Both are equally oppressive and authoritarian.

Sorry, but no. This is simply false. Fascism:

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."

Emphasis mine.

Socialism:

"Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership."

You'll notice how the first is specifically characterized by being authoritarian and oppressive. Those are innate qualities of fascism. Socialism is simply a system where the means of production are owned collectively by the people of the society.

 

[Viker]

So what? The rich have defeated the rich. The rich will still be alright. And the working classes and the poor, disenfranchised and minorities lose, as always. Nothing new. Just more aggressive approach than before.

 

[Estro Felino]

So what? The rich have defeated the rich. The rich will still be alright. And the working classes and the poor, disenfranchised and minorities lose, as always. Nothing new. Just more aggressive approach than before.

I understand your point...
but at least the right-wingers don't pretend to be different.
It's disgusting when leftists pretend to be leftists, yet they just love sipping cocktails in luxutìrious lounge, with the French R...

 

[Viker]

You can call me Eva Braun...
I am celebrating...
Ich habe ein Fest vorbereitet! Kommen Sie mit? Kommt Kinder...

Eva, such a perfect naif. A shining example of credulity so easily beguiled.

 

[Viker]

I understand your point...
but at least the right-wingers don't pretend to be different.
It's disgusting when leftists pretend to be leftists, yet they just love sipping cocktails in luxutìrious lounge, with the French R...

Yes they pretend. They pretend to be on the side of the disenfranchised workers. The people will learn, again, with another night of long knives (back stabbing). They'll learn too late like the last time.

 

[Viker]

BTW... .Vive la Résistance!

 

[Estro Felino]

Eva, such a perfect naif. A shining example of credulity so easily beguiled.

I was joking.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes they pretend. They pretend to be on the side of the disenfranchised workers. The people will learn, again, with another night of long knives (back stabbing). They'll learn too late like the last time.

I will never side with the American Democratic Party which is under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers.
They make me sick.
They are the ones who are chasing a hero like Julian Assange, my personal hero. Who exposed their crimes.

 

[Viker]

I will never side with the American Democratic Party which is under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers.
They make me sick.
They are the ones who are chasing a hero like Julian Assange, my personal hero. Who exposed their crimes.

It takes two to tango. The US government operates under the direction of both parties.

 

[Estro Felino]

It takes two to tango. The US government operates under the direction of both parties.

Kennedy is above all this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sorry, but no. This is simply false. Fascism:

"Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy."

Emphasis mine.

Socialism:

"Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership."

You'll notice how the first is specifically characterized by being authoritarian and oppressive. Those are innate qualities of fascism. Socialism is simply a system where the means of production are owned collectively by the people of the society.

No. Socialism is dangerous and is no better than Fascism.

 

[Stevicus]

I will never side with the American Democratic Party which is under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers.
They make me sick.
They are the ones who are chasing a hero like Julian Assange, my personal hero. Who exposed their crimes.

Well, there is a background to how it became that way, as we've discussed in the past. Democrats Wilson and FDR might be called warmongers, but they might argue that they were dealing with an entire world of warmongers at the time. However, Truman might be considered among the first of America's wanton warmongers who engaged in wars and other aggressive activity which had nothing to do with America's national security. At that time, the leadership was ostensibly less concerned about national security as they were about ideological security. This is why McCarthyism became a thing, and J. Edgar Hoover was involved in all kinds of unsavory antics to locate, identify, and persecute whom he believed to be communists.

Both parties were pretty much on the same page at this point, except the Democrats criticized McCarthyism and other such tactics, while the Republicans countered that the Democrats were too soft and practically accused them of treason by giving the Soviet Bloc too much leeway. JFK was somewhat on board with the overall anti-communist policy of Containment, but he seemingly wanted to open the lines of communication and take a more diplomatic approach in dealing America's adversaries. This somehow didn't suit some folks who felt he should be eliminated, while LBJ turned out to be another anti-communist warmonger.

Ironically, it was Nixon who turned out to be the great peacemaker during the Cold War, opening up the doors to China and establishing Detente with the Soviets, in addition to ending the Vietnam War. Carter seemingly favored peace, but with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, he was faced with insurmountable geopolitical problems which pretty much killed his chance at a second term. Then, along came Reagan with his warmongering bluster and blather. The Democrats were lambasted as a party of wimps and weenies, if not useful idiots for the Soviets. They tarred the disarmament movement with ties to the communists.

In other words, the Democrats might have wanted to take a more peaceful course, but public opinion was manipulated in such a way that peace was no longer an option. The anti-war cause which grew out of the 60s no longer held the hearts and minds of the general public or media. There was a point where war became cool again, and people were encouraged to embrace a more war-loving stance, helped by movies like Red Dawn and Top Gun. TV shows like "Cops" also became popular, encouraging people to embrace the police state.

In the atmosphere which was being created at the time, I wonder how any party or candidate advocating peace could possibly hope to win an election. The Democrats must have seen the writing on the wall and concluded that they had to go along with the warmongers, lest they face political obscurity.

 

[Magic Man]

No. Socialism is dangerous and is no better than Fascism.

Thank you for that well-thought-out and informative comment. Now back to the fact that socialism is not authoritarian or oppressive, while fascism by definition is, as laid out with their actual definitions.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thank you for that well-thought-out and informative comment. Now back to the fact that socialism is not authoritarian or oppressive, while fascism by definition is, as laid out with their actual definitions.

Bull****. Its a failed political ideology , extremely dangerous, and always leads to authoritarianism or abject disaster.

Now back to the fact of it's track record.

Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from all real-world examples of failed socialist experiments.

www.forbes.com

 

[Magic Man]

I will never side with the American Democratic Party which is under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers.

You'll never side with the party that actually works for the common people? Kind of weird, since your whole thing here is that you support the common people against "the elite". There are warmongers in the Democratic party, but "elitist cabal of warmongers" is much more accurate for Republicans.

They make me sick.

Yes, you've been conditioned to feel this way toward them.

They are the ones who are chasing a hero like Julian Assange, my personal hero. Who exposed their crimes.

Ah, yes, your personal hero, who worked with Russia to put out a hit piece on Democrats right before an election. You'd have to specify which "crimes" you think were exposed. All it really showed was pretty normal stuff from a political party. Odd that the leaks were only of Democrats' stuff, not Republicans'. Almost like there was an agenda (again, right before an election).

Also:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3944700-democrats-call-for-garland-to-drop-charges-against-assange/

 

[Magic Man]

Bull****. Its a failed political ideology , extremely dangerous, and always leads to authoritarianism or abject disaster.

Now back to the fact of it's track record.

Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from all real-world examples of failed socialist experiments.

www.forbes.com

1) We're talking about socialism vs. fascism. You're claiming socialism is oppressive and authoritarian. It's not. Fascism is.

2) It's not a failed political ideology. Most western countries use aspects of socialism, some to a fairly large degree.

3) There's nothing at all dangerous about it, and it doesn't lead to authoritarianism or abject disaster. Fascism specifically is authoritarian and a disaster, inherently.

Now back to the fact that socialism has a perfectly fine track record.

 

[Stevicus]

Bull****. Its a failed political ideology , extremely dangerous, and always leads to authoritarianism or abject disaster.

Now back to the fact of it's track record.

Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies

Socialists have successfully managed to distance themselves from all real-world examples of failed socialist experiments.

www.forbes.com

Fascism is, for the most part, nationalism on steroids. Nationalism itself can be manifested in various ways - not necessarily automatically connecte to any specific political or economic system. Fascism is merely a more fanatical manifestation of nationalism.

Socialism is more of an economic philosophy which can also manifest itself in various ways. It has been problematic when people view a specific philosophy and believe that it's a system and a plan that must be followed no matter what, which doesn't allow for enough flexibility or adaptability to changing circumstances. Not every socialist thinks that way, but there have been those who have, which is why they failed.

The real underlying problem that I've observed is when people adhere to an ideology which such unyielding zeal, intransigence, and fanaticism that they lose the ability to recognize and adapt to challenges and changing circumstances. Stubborn arrogance coupled with overconfidence seems to be humanity's weakness. Anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, is susceptible to it under the right circumstances. That's the reason for having a system of checks and balances in place to prevent a situation where a single individual holds that much political power.

 

[Estro Felino]

You'll never side with the party that actually works for the common people? Kind of weird, since your whole thing here is that you support the common people against "the elite". There are warmongers in the Democratic party, but "elitist cabal of warmongers" is much more accurate for Republicans.

When Biden implements free universal healthcare, I will say that the Dems care about the commoners. Yet...
they only care about the yacht-owners.

Yes, you've been conditioned to feel this way toward them.

I used to like them. The Libyan War made me change my mind.

Ah, yes, your personal hero, who worked with Russia to put out a hit piece on Democrats right before an election. You'd have to specify which "crimes" you think were exposed. All it really showed was pretty normal stuff from a political party. Odd that the leaks were only of Democrats' stuff, not Republicans'. Almost like there was an agenda (again, right before an election).

The Libyan War. Those warmongers destroyed Libya, our ally.
And they unleashed the Syrian War.

Also:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3944700-democrats-call-for-garland-to-drop-charges-against-assange/

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, there is a background to how it became that way, as we've discussed in the past. Democrats Wilson and FDR might be called warmongers, but they might argue that they were dealing with an entire world of warmongers at the time. However, Truman might be considered among the first of America's wanton warmongers who engaged in wars and other aggressive activity which had nothing to do with America's national security. At that time, the leadership was ostensibly less concerned about national security as they were about ideological security. This is why McCarthyism became a thing, and J. Edgar Hoover was involved in all kinds of unsavory antics to locate, identify, and persecute whom he believed to be communists.

Both parties were pretty much on the same page at this point, except the Democrats criticized McCarthyism and other such tactics, while the Republicans countered that the Democrats were too soft and practically accused them of treason by giving the Soviet Bloc too much leeway. JFK was somewhat on board with the overall anti-communist policy of Containment, but he seemingly wanted to open the lines of communication and take a more diplomatic approach in dealing America's adversaries. This somehow didn't suit some folks who felt he should be eliminated, while LBJ turned out to be another anti-communist warmonger.

Ironically, it was Nixon who turned out to be the great peacemaker during the Cold War, opening up the doors to China and establishing Detente with the Soviets, in addition to ending the Vietnam War. Carter seemingly favored peace, but with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, he was faced with insurmountable geopolitical problems which pretty much killed his chance at a second term. Then, along came Reagan with his warmongering bluster and blather. The Democrats were lambasted as a party of wimps and weenies, if not useful idiots for the Soviets. They tarred the disarmament movement with ties to the communists.

In other words, the Democrats might have wanted to take a more peaceful course, but public opinion was manipulated in such a way that peace was no longer an option. The anti-war cause which grew out of the 60s no longer held the hearts and minds of the general public or media. There was a point where war became cool again, and people were encouraged to embrace a more war-loving stance, helped by movies like Red Dawn and Top Gun. TV shows like "Cops" also became popular, encouraging people to embrace the police state.

In the atmosphere which was being created at the time, I wonder how any party or candidate advocating peace could possibly hope to win an election. The Democrats must have seen the writing on the wall and concluded that they had to go along with the warmongers, lest they face political obscurity.

The Truth is that the only President who loved peace was JFK and they eliminated him. The same elitist cabal did.
After him...all presidents, right or left, they were all pro-wars.

PS: Oriana Fallaci once wrote: an answer should be as short as a miniskirt: Short enough to be interesting, and long enough to cover the topic.

Sorry...you know how much I appreciate and value your history knowledge and wisdom...

 

[Magic Man]

When Biden implements free universal healthcare, I will say that the Dems care about the commoners. Yet...
they only care about the yacht-owners.

This makes no sense. Democrats are the only ones who at all support universal healthcare. If anyone gets it passed here, it'll be them. Republicans are the biggest impediment to it. While Democrats cater to rich people too, Republicans are the party of the rich. They are much, much more subservient to the whims of the rich.

I used to like them. The Libyan War made me change my mind.

The Libyan War. Those warmongers destroyed Libya, our ally.
And they unleashed the Syrian War.

What does that have to do with Julian Assange? And you'll have to be much more specific here. You seem to be talking about the U.S. attacking ISIS. If that's the case, you'll have to explain the problem with going after ISIS, and then why you blame Democrats.

But really, the main thing is that Republicans are the true warmongers. Democrats go along with it way too easily, too, but if you're going to despise an American political party for being warmongers, it makes no sense to single out the less "warmongery" of the two.