"The Right is way worse than the Left!!!"

[Shadow Wolf]

If all these lefties are going to pervert definitions
of socialism & capitalism, they I'll provide my own.

You won't even accept how much of the world views libertarianism, instead deferring very strongly to how it has been perverted and redefined in America.
You even have an established history of quoting further down the Wiki article about it, ignoring everything else that came before and refutes your point.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, both.

Correct, both are evil.

I shouldn't be surprised that the false equivalency demonstrated in the opening post translates into obliviousness or willful ignorance of how team red - and only team red - has been blatantly hostile to women's fundamental rights. Don't you dare tell me they're equivalent. Such rot gives you less than zero credibility.

 

[fantome profane]

You still sound like a conservative who
rails against any government service
as "socialism". Why not simply accept
that capitalism is the best system to
provide social services?

Maybe because things are a great deal more complicated than that.

 

[Father Heathen]

You still sound like a conservative who
rails against any government service
as "socialism". Why not simply accept
that capitalism is the best system to
provide social services?

Like I've already said, I'm not anti-capitalist; I believe some things shouldn't be privatized.

 

[Revoltingest]

You won't even accept how much of the world views libertarianism....

I prefer mainstream usage, which comports with
historical origins & Libertarian Party platforms.

You even have an established history of quoting further down the Wiki article about it, ignoring everything else that came before and refutes your point.

You've misread history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe because things are a great deal more complicated than that.

How so?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You won't even accept how much of the world views libertarianism, instead deferring very strongly to how it has been perverted and redefined in America.
You even have an established history of quoting further down the Wiki article about it, ignoring everything else that came before and refutes your point.

I have noticed, albeit admittedly in my own limited experience, that a lot of Americans demonize socialism and communism much more than people in many other countries. Islamists are extremely socially conservative but actually share a lot of fiscal views with socialists and even communists, for example. The same goes for pan-Arabists.

I don't find it to be a coincidence that the US, the country that originated the Red Scare and is a major beneficiary of neocolonialist policies, is noticeably more anti-Marxist than, say, much of South America or the Middle East.

 

[fantome profane]

How so?

Unregulated capitalism is not good for providing social services. Unregulated capitalism will eventually lead to collapse.

So what level of regulations and what kind will lead to a prosperous and just society? That is a very complicated question. I hope you can see, and acknowledge that.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have noticed, albeit admittedly in my own limited experience, that a lot of Americans demonize socialism and communism much more than people in many other countries. Islamists are extremely socially conservative but actually share a lot of fiscal views with socialists and even communists, for example. The same goes for pan-Arabists.

Conservatives who demonize "socialism" here
often use the same definition that liberals employ
to praise it, ie, that it's about government providing
social & other services, eg, public roads, public
schools, health care, etc.
Libs & cons yell at each other about things they
agree with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unregulated capitalism is not good for providing social services. Unregulated capitalism will eventually lead to collapse.

I don't see any countries with unregulated capitalism.
So that's not a complexity worth addressing.

So what level of regulations and what kind will lead to a prosperous and just society? That is a very complicated question. I hope you can see, and acknowledge that.

Duh!
I've oft weighed in on behalf of useful regulation.
Perhaps you've just never read those posts.
Anyway, recognizing that regulation can be
beneficial isn't complex. Much of it is even
commonly agreed upon by political opponents.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Conservatives who demonize "socialism" here
often use the same definition that liberals employ
to praise it, ie, that it's about government providing
social & other services, eg, public roads, public
schools, health care, etc.
Libs & cons yell at each other about things they
agree with.

I think the fact that some conservatives demonize socialism even when they speak of it as the government merely providing essential services goes to show that the Red Scare is alive and well, for the most part. It's not as potent as it was in the '70s or '80s, of course, but it hasn't completely faded yet.

The American talk of Chinese world domination and ensuing doom and gloom—under the assumption that China is a "communist state"—is evidence of this even though China, for all of its faults, hasn't waged a fraction as many wars as the US has in the last few decades. It certainly wasn't China that barged into Iraq along with multiple blindly loyal allies and killed half a million people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the fact that some conservatives demonize socialism even when they speak of it as the government merely providing essential services goes to show that the Red Scare is alive and well, for the most part. It's not as potent as it was in the '70s or '80s, of course, but it hasn't completely faded yet.

The Red Scare was very different from what
we see today. It was about unconstitutional
persecution & prosecution based upon political
orientation.

The American talk of Chinese world domination and ensuing doom and gloom—under the assumption that China is a "communist state"—is evidence of this even though China, for all of its faults, hasn't waged a fraction as many wars as the US has in the last few decades. It certainly wasn't China that barged into Iraq along with multiple blindly loyal allies and killed half a million people.

China's "communism" isn't really a label about
their economic policies. (Although Xi has stated
he wants to return to the old days of more socialism.)
The label is theirs, & is about political party agendas.
As for US wrongful foreign adventurism, this doesn't
make China any less of a threat to us & other countries.

BTW, China doesn't wage wars so much as it simply
conquers & assimilates countries like Tibet. And
Taiwan on the menu. Our wars are more "wars"
because we go in, we devastate, & then we leave.
(Note that I disapprove of this.)
You might prefer China's behavior to Ameristan's,
but that would be tough to defend, especially their
internal war on Uighurs.

 

[fantome profane]

Duh!

You asked the question.

 

[Revoltingest]

You asked the question.

I think you're confused.
You quoted a part of my post that responded to a part of your post that wasn't about my question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I prefer mainstream usage, which comports with
historical origins & Libertarian Party platforms.

The American Libertarian Party doesn't hold a monopoly on the term libertarian, hasn't redefined for the rest of the world, and indeed it's true and real historic context is social issues, not economic.
This is why "left wing libertarian" can seem confusing, even contradictory, in America even though it's well understood to the world and history from the historic usage of libertarian.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the fact that some conservatives demonize socialism even when they speak of it as the government merely providing essential services goes to show that the Red Scare is alive and well, for the most part. It's not as potent as it was in the '70s or '80s, of course, but it hasn't completely faded yet.

The American talk of Chinese world domination and ensuing doom and gloom—under the assumption that China is a "communist state"—is evidence of this even though China, for all of its faults, hasn't waged a fraction as many wars as the US has in the last few decades. It certainly wasn't China that barged into Iraq along with multiple blindly loyal allies and killed half a million people.

They haven't launched the wars but they have pushed their weight around in other ways. They get others to bend without firing a bullet (especially through monitoring Chinese people in other countries and economic weight).

 

[Revoltingest]

The American Libertarian Party doesn't hold a monopoly on the term libertarian, hasn't redefined for the rest of the world, and indeed it's true and real historic context is social issues, not economic.
This is why "left wing libertarian" can seem confusing, even contradictory, in America even though it's well understood to the world and history from the historic usage of libertarian.

To claim that one can be socialist and libertarian
is bogus. Economic authoritarianism by itself
makes it non-libertarian. But the consequent
social oppression of socialism is especially
non-libertarian.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The Red Scare was very different from what
we see today. It was about unconstitutional
persecution & prosecution based upon political
orientation.

Different, yes, but some of its residues still linger today, such as the fact that any openly socialist or communist candidate in the US would lose many votes by sheer virtue of the label.

China's "communism" isn't really a label about
their economic policies. (Although Xi has stated
he wants to return to the old days of more socialism.)
The label is theirs, & is about political party agendas.
As for US wrongful foreign adventurism, this doesn't
make China any less of a threat to us & other countries.

BTW, China doesn't wage wars so much as it simply
conquers & assimilates countries like Tibet. And
Taiwan on the menu. Our wars are more "wars"
because we go in, we devastate, & then we leave.
(Note that I disapprove of this.)
You might prefer China's behavior to Ameristan's,
but that would be tough to defend, especially their
internal war on Uighurs.

They haven't launched the wars but they have pushed their weight around in other ways. They get others to bend without firing a bullet (especially through monitoring Chinese people in other countries and economic weight).

I view both China and the US as bullies in terms of their foreign policy. They also both tend to only trot out specific mantras such as "stability," "order," "democracy," etc., when doing so suits their geopolitical interests and agendas.

The difference is that I don't see China as worse than the US overall in terms of foreign policy. The idea that the US is a bulwark against a communist evil in the form of China strikes me as Western-centric propaganda: at worst, Chinese foreign policy would be as bad as its American counterpart has been toward much of the Middle East, Asia, and South America, among others. It's hard to do much worse than being the only country in history to drop nukes on another country, or waging more wars in the span of a few decades than some countries have done in a century or more.

 

[Revoltingest]

Different, yes, but some of its residues still linger today, such as the fact that any openly socialist or communist candidate in the US would lose many votes by sheer virtue of the label.

Losing an election isn't persecution.
(I should know, we Libertarians are
experts at losing them.)
The Red Scare is now long dead. But
communism is still unattractive to most.

I view both China and the US as bullies in terms of their foreign policy. They also both tend to only trot out specific mantras such as "stability," "order," "democracy," etc., when doing so suits their geopolitical interests and agendas.

Ya know....if I said something like "both are"
the usual suspects would immediately cry
"False equivalency!"
Fortunately, I recognize that sharing flaws
doesn't mean equivalency.

The difference is that I don't see China as worse than the US overall in terms of foreign policy. The idea that the US is a bulwark against a communist evil in the form of China strikes me as Western-centric propaganda: at worst, Chinese foreign policy would be as bad as its American counterpart has been toward much of the Middle East, Asia, and South America, among others. It's hard to do much worse than being the only country in history to drop nukes on another country, or waging more wars in the span of a few decades than some countries do in a century or more.

You can prefer China. Russia too?
I prefer Ameristan, all its warts notwithstanding.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Losing an election isn't persecution.
(I should know, we Libertarians are
experts at losing them.)
The Red Scare is now long dead. But
communism is still unattractive to most.

The image that many have of communism hearkens back to Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and other violent, totalitarian ideologies. This makes it complicated to decouple communism as a general ideology from its most destructive forms, similar to how a lot of people automatically associate certain religions with the worst examples without having much familiarity with their underlying concepts.

Ya know....if I said something like "both are"
the usual suspects would immediately cry
"False equivalency!"
Fortunately, I recognize that sharing flaws
doesn't mean equivalency.

They're not equivalent, but they share enough similarities for neither to be very preferable to the other as global powers from the perspective of many people outside both countries.

You can prefer China. Russia too?
I prefer Ameristan, all its warts notwithstanding.

"Prefer" is inaccurate: domestically, I think Chinese policies are far worse than those of the US (e.g., the genocide of Uyghurs and the ultra-repressive political climate). In terms of foreign policy, the US has been markedly worse in the last few decades, yes, at least in terms of the scale of harm it has caused.

Whether China will match or surpass the toxicity of American foreign policy remains to be seen. Russia has long been as bad as the US on that front, so I have no preference for it whether domestically or globally.