Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

[Revoltingest]

Wrong. Socialism is commonly defined as the economic system in which workers own the means of production they work for.

State communism advocates state ownership of the means of production on behalf of the workers, by the people.

You've been short on definitions that comport with dictionaries.
Using personal definitions is no way to convince anyone of
your argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

I imagine internal murder and power struggle is pretty common in all authoritarian regimes. Your demonisation is relentless.

To present the historical reality of socialism isn't demonization.
But if it were, socialism demonizes itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't care what economic system we use. So long as it is equitable and sustainable. Providing the basics for all.

I care only because there's no reasonable alternative to capitalism.
The goals you cite are most easily achieved within it because
of greater economic productivity.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

You've been short on definitions that comport with dictionaries.
Using personal definitions is no way to convince anyone of
your argument.

Personal definition? No. Marx's.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I care only because there's no reasonable alternative to capitalism.
The goals you cite are most easily achieved within it because
of greater economic productivity.

How is increasing productivity helping anyone but the owners, if the profits are not fairly and equitably redistributed? I think we're all getting a bit tired of crony capitalism and trickle down economics. Capitalism. Has had its day. Ever increasing consumption is not sustainable.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I care only because there's no reasonable alternative to capitalism.
The goals you cite are most easily achieved within it because
of greater economic productivity.

We could do away with money entirely and the transactional economic systems that follow.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

To present the historical reality of socialism isn't demonization.
But if it were, socialism demonizes itself.

As if the fruits of capitalism were all wonderful. Looking at the poverty substance abuse incarceration rate poor health outcomes and crumbling infrastructure of the USA. Among many other metrics.

Really, you're presenting Stalinist communism. State communist dictatorship. Is not socialism. Socialism, covers a multiplicity of socioeconomic theories. Including the extreme end of authoritarian statist communism. Antithetical to anarcho communists in fact.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Economics is very much part of nazism.
It cannot be ignored.
Read the platform of the American Nazi Party.
Are you claiming they don't address it as a fundamental?

When people think of Nazis, their first thoughts are not related to their economic position. They're associated with genocide, racial supremacy, expansionist militaristic ambition, nationalism and authoritarianism. You're trying to demonise the left by the most tenuous association. Like every alt right slanderer I've ever met.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personal definition? No. Marx's.

He's long dead.
We're in the 21st century, not the 19th.
And his is a failed vision.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is increasing productivity helping anyone but the owners, if the profits are not fairly and equitably redistributed?

You presume inequity is inexorable.
Do you see no capitalist country that's better
than the best socialist ones, eg, Cuba?
Answering that will fix the problem, ie,
capitalism can fuel social spending better
than can socialism.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

He's long dead.
We're in the 21st century, not the 19th.
And his is a failed vision.

Never been implemented properly. Just Stalinist communism.

 

[Revoltingest]

We could do away with money entirely and the transactional economic systems that follow.

How would that work?
Where has it been tried in any large economy?

 

[Azrael Antilla]

You presume inequity is inexorable.
Do you see no capitalist country that's better
than the best socialist ones, eg, Cuba?
Answering that will fix the problem, ie,
capitalism can fuel social spending better
than can socialism.

Capitalism only works when there is a balance of negotiating power between workers and consumers, and the corporations. Unregulated predatory corporations and an unfettered free market, kills millions. Enslaves millions.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

How would that work?
Where has it been tried in any large economy?

Yes. Most hunter gatherers do not adopt fiscal tokens for transaction. All property and resources are communally owned. Implementing that into an industrial post capitalist civilization, would require a paradigm shift of epic proportion. Certainly.

 

[Revoltingest]

As if the fruits of capitalism were all wonderful.

I call "straw man".
I've never claimed or implied that.
Only that capitalism is capable of yielding better results
than is socialism. I base this on real world examples.

Looking at the poverty substance abuse incarceration rate poor health outcomes and crumbling infrastructure of the USA. Among many other metrics.

Those result from how tax money is managed.
If the same money were spent on those things
instead of policing the world, we'd have great
social benefits.
As for incarceration, that was greatly increased under
the left, ie, the Clinton adminastration. Joe Biden was
the prime mover behind his crime bill.
Libertarians (the real liberals) & even some on the right
have urged decriminalizing drugs.

Really, you're presenting Stalinist communism.

Once again, you're using a personal definition.
And I'm not addressing communism (ie, no private
ownership of property), only socialism (the people
own the means of production). Communism is even
worse than socialism.

State communist dictatorship. Is not socialism.

Socialism isn't defined by the form of government.
It could be a democracy or authoritarian. It just
tends towards the latter (a system theory thing).

Socialism, covers a multiplicity of socioeconomic theories. Including the extreme end of authoritarian statist communism. Antithetical to anarcho communists in fact.

The problem with most advocates of socialism
is that they define it narrowly in terms of their
dream system being a success in all ways.
They ignore how it's actually defined, & how
it's played out when tried by various countries.
Or they claim a capitalistic country is socialist,
eg, Denmark.

 

[Revoltingest]

When people think of Nazis, their first thoughts are not related to their economic position.

What people "first think of" is not the best way to define something.
But even so, "National socialism" does bring socialism to the fore.

They're associated with genocide, racial supremacy, expansionist militaristic ambition, nationalism and authoritarianism.

That was Nazi Germany. Have you read the American
Nazi Party platform. It's greatly different, all the bigotry
notwithstanding. Finding common ground can be useful
when conversing with them & attempting to sway them
away from bigotry.
Do you prefer to rail at them or convert them?

You're trying to demonise the left by the most tenuous association. Like every alt right slanderer I've ever met.

Evidence of your argument failing is this continual resort
to the ad hominem. You've no standard definitions.
You've no real world evidence of socialism's success.
All you have is painting me as right wing.
Alas for you, I'm not.

Why are you here on RF? People have various reasons.
Conversation, advocacy, laughter, argumentation, information,
& excoriating people who believe the wrong thing. The last
is mutually exclusive with the others. Which are your goals?
Always good to keep this larger picture in mind when posting,
especially during vigorous disagreement.
Try an experiment....
Make a cogent argument using evidence,
without any mention of my claimed shortcomings.
You'll get better results.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

I call "straw man".
I've never claimed or implied that.
Only that capitalism is capable of yielding better results
than is socialism. I base this on real world examples.

Those result from how tax money is managed.
If the same money were spent on those things
instead of policing the world, we'd have great
social benefits.
As for incarceration, that was greatly increased under
the left, ie, the Clinton adminastration. Joe Biden was
the prime mover behind his crime bill.
Libertarians (the real liberals) & even some on the right
have urged decriminalizing drugs.

Once again, you're using a personal definition.
And I'm not addressing communism (ie, no private
ownership of property), only socialism (the people
own the means of production). Communism is even
worse than socialism.

Socialism isn't defined by the form of government.
It could be a democracy or authoritarian. It just
tends towards the latter (a system theory thing).

The problem with most advocates of socialism
is that they define it narrowly in terms of their
dream system being a success in all ways.
They ignore how it's actually defined, & how
it's played out when tried by various countries.
Or they claim a capitalistic country is socialist,
eg, Denmark.

I'd join a democratic socialist party. In principle. I promise, if they start wearing snazzy uniforms with little skulls and start banging on about the purity of the white race. I am gone. I am outta there baby. You won't see me for dust. No worries.

 

[Revoltingest]

Never been implemented properly. Just Stalinist communism.

This should suggest something...
If an economic system has never been shown to
be implemented successfully, then it might have a
fundamental flaw making success impossible.
Contrast that with capitalism, which has been
successful in many countries.

BTW, I've elaborated on the inherent systemic flaws
of socialism in other threads. It's beyond the scope
of this thread, ie, it would be derailed.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

What people "first think of" is not the best way to define something.
But even so, "National socialism" does bring socialism to the fore.

That was Nazi Germany. Have you read the American
Nazi Party platform. It's greatly different, all the bigotry
notwithstanding. Finding common ground can be useful
when conversing with them & attempting to sway them
away from bigotry.
Do you prefer to rail against them or convert them?

Evidence of your argument failing is this continual
resort to the ad hominem. You've no standard definitions.
You've no real world evidence of socialism's success.
All you have is painting me as right wing.
Alas for you, I'm not.

Why are you here on RF? People have various reasons.
Conversation, advocacy, laughter, argumentation, information,
& excoriating people who believe the wrong thing. The last
is mutually exclusive with the others. Which are your goals?
Always good to keep this larger picture in mind when posting,
especially during vigorous disagreement.
Try an experiment....
Make a cogent argument using evidence,
without any mention of my claimed shortcomings.
You'll get better results.

Dude. Person who has spent time and effort communicating with me. I appreciate your patience and civility. If I have insulted you, I apologize. However I am emotively invested. Let me put it this way. I am a left leaning cynicist who is descended from stock deemed unacceptable to exist by Nazis. Thus. When I hear Nazis compared to the loving decent kind leftist well meaning heart bleeders. I gets a little testy. Anyway. No offence. No malicious intentions intended. As i hinted before. This subject is close to the bone. Closer than most.

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism only works when there is a balance of negotiating power between workers and consumers, and the corporations. Unregulated predatory corporations and an unfettered free market, kills millions. Enslaves millions.

"Unregulated" is another straw man. It's highly regulated
here & elsewhere. The issue is always what kind of
regulation best serves the country. I've advocated for
various kinds of regulation.