Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AdeptSister wrote:
I find the thread to be helpful to get concrete information and a better understanding of certain demographics. While there are some who do not argue in good faith, some actually provide a good counter perspective.

Also, I truly believe that even if there was a Trump "N-word" tape and it was released, it would change nothing. We just need to accept that while the number of people who identify themselves as republicans shrinks, he will always have support and the "true conservatives" will never revolt to try to reclaim their party. Why should they if the get what they want?

I just find it hard to believe that the media would sit on it.

I'd bet a not insignificant amount of cash (and then borrow some more!) that it would be released pronto...and pounded every day.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
And in this case, this is an actual, literal, Hitler-was-right, Jews-caused-WW2 Nazi. it's not 'both sides' when one side is actually nominating actual, literal FETHING NAZIS.

The gakstain in Missouri won the Republican primary for the state district with 49.5% of the vote (1485votes) the Democrat incumbent who ran unopposed in the Democrat primary got over 3700 votes. The Democrat incumbent is going to win re-election easily, nothing is actually going to change.
https://ballotpedia.org/Steve_West_(Missouri)

In a state legislature race in which the Republicans had no chance of winning they didn’t even take the election seriously enough to push a good candidate a minority of Republican voters nominated a gakstain racist shock jock douche. Somehow you interpret this event as proof that the Republican Party, the Party that holds a majority of governorships, state houses, Congress and the presidency, whose state Party in Missouri has already denounced the gakstain and never did anything to endorse or promote him, the state Party that can’t stop eligible Missouri citizens from getting on the Republican primary ballot if they follow the nomination rules and the Party that can’t dictate who people vote for, that Party is actively and deliberately nominating Nazis, plural? That’s your take away from this? The local race that the Party didn’t even attempt to win is the race that we should hold up as defining the Party that represents half the country? That’s crazy extreme hyperbole.

Okay, I guess I oversold the point I was making. I'm not saying GOP= Nazi. I am saying the GOP has a Nazi problem. How are these people joing the party? Does the leadership not vet their members? If I started a political party called the Kill All the Panzee Gitz Party, and ran on a strictly no-Eldar policy, then one thing I would do is revoke membership from anyone who had a radio show that spent a lot of time talking about how cool the Eldar are. Do you see my point? Maybe I don't understand how party membership works in the US.

 whembly wrote:
Crazy extreme hyperbole indeed...

That'd be like blaming the Democrat party from James T Hodgkinson.

Except there's only one James, versus thousands of card carrying Republicans who voted for a literal Nazi in ONE district alone.

Saying that the Democratic Party is socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

That’s why words have meanings, and why the actual definitions matter more than the words.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Certainly - I don't align with any party. The decision between the two is easy for me though. The party that taxes me less and puts less restrictions on my day to day. It's the easiest decision in the world to make.

What about when less taxes means it is in doubt whether schools can be funded? What about when, down the line, your community has no jobs because the education standard was so poor due to those underfunded schools that no business wants to set up shop there because they cannot get the educated workforce they require? The government is taxing you less and has not added any restrictions to your day to day life but your quality of life, and that of your whole community, will still have decreased.

Taxes are important. They pay for very important things, from roads, to trains, to schools and books and teachers. They pay for your grandparents to get access to healthcare. They pay for veterans of the wars the US has fought in to get healthcare. Cutting taxes is not always a good thing. An extra $5 in your pocket a month is basically nothing, it is $60 a year. But $60 a year, multiplied by 300 million people, can buy an awful lot and improve an awful lot of lives.

The key words, from my personal experience, are “on my day to day”.

The GOP loves to regulate other people’s day-to-day lives.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Wow Ouze. The Dems literally had a runner up candidate (which probably should have won - if not for the DNC cheating him) Who is actually a socialist. You are pretty disconnected from reality.

Taken as a whole by their national platform and the bulk of their candidates, the US Democratic party would be pretty solidly centrist in literally any other developed nation. It's only by the standards of the modern US Republican party that anyone would label the Democratic party as a whole "far left".

A couple mild socialists, advocating largely on national healthcare, does not a far left or socialist party make.

The political spectrum does not change as more countries around the world become more leftist.

https://www.iagreetosee.com/faq/what-is-the-political-spectrum/

The scale stays the same. To argue that US democrats are not becoming more socialist is just idiotic as well.
Lets take a look at their main platforms -
*Redistribution of wealth
*Redistribution of power
*Socialized healthcare
*Universal basic income

These are socialist concepts - it can not be argued against.

Socialized healthcare has been a standard of developed nations for a lifetime, in some cases two. If you want to adopt that as a "far left" position, feel free, but literally every other nation on the planet that has a modicum of functional government provides that, and has done so for many decades, with some programs (such as in Germany, partly courtesy of no less than that rabid leftist Bismarck) dating back to the 1880's. You can go from Japan to Israel to England to Singapore to France to South Korea to Finland or Canada and they'll all have universal healthcare, most of the developed world sees that as a basic function of a working government, not a newfangled leftist invention. Yes, it's a socialist concept, but that doesn't mean that a party adopting it is "far left", by the same token, just because national defense is a function of the government and is a socialized service provided to all regardless of ability to pay, that doesn't make it a "far left" thing either.

Literally the only place on the entire planet where socialized healthcare is considered a "far left" thing is in the US, and even there only among a partion of the population, in no other political environment on Earth is it viewed as such.

UBI is not a main platform of the US Democratic party beyond a single state-level apparatus.

As for redistribution, that doesn't necessarily make it "hard left". Social Security is an income redistribution program, is that a "far left" item? SNAP? Medicaid? Disability? I've yet to see a major Democratic platform centered around collectivist farming, nationalizing industry, seizing and redistributing land, etc.

Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

Total government control is not a far left concept. You're confusing your X and Y axis on the political compass...

The decision between the two is easy for me though. The party that taxes me less

Yeah...nevermind if those taxes actually provide useful things like roads and emergency response and national defense and support important research and development efforts, lower taxes in and of itself is the name of the game...

Thats how we get Trump tax cuts that double the size of the deficit.

and puts less restrictions on my day to day. It's the easiest decision in the world to make.

such as...?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

They destroyed all their political opponents. That is what complete government control is. The same thing happens in communism - because facism and communism are basically the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Saying that the Democratic Party is socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

That’s why words have meanings, and why the actual definitions matter more than the words.

So because Bernie had close to half the democratic parties support and is a socialist. The democratic party isn't socialist.

By the way - I pulled this link out of a liberal article in favor of socialism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

This actually kind of makes me happy. It basically ensures that the democrats will never win another election in this country.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

I think you are confusing how authoritarian regimes consolidate their power vs what their political goals are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#The_25-point_Program_of_the_NSDAP

The Nazi's were a nationalist socialist party, that is a fact. The problem is that socialism is an enormous umbrella with many different social societies falling underneath it, communism being more internationalist and the Nazi's being nationalist which is why the two group's hate each other so much.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

They destroyed all their political opponents. That is what complete government control is. The same thing happens in communism - because facism and communism are basically the same thing.

From the point of view of the peasant tilling the field, you are correct. For them, there is no appreciable difference between their Nazi or Soviet overlord.

From every other point of view, you are way, way off base.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's exactly one "far leftie" here, as far as I know. You have absolutely zero perspective of what constitutes far left and far right.

Only one? Damn... That means I have not been very successful in subversively spreading the Revolution through DakkaDakka. I will need to double my efforts. Anyone up for communism here? No? What about anarchism then? Anarcho-syndicalism sounds nice right?

 Formosa wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There's exactly one "far leftie" here, as far as I know. You have absolutely zero perspective of what constitutes far left and far right.

I’ve counted at least 3, and as arrogant as it sounds from what I have read on here over the last few weeks, I am one of the few who understands the far left and far right quite well, nou is also very knowledgeable on the subject.

Great leftist comrade Formosa, I bow to your superior knowledge of leftist teachings. Please enlighten us as to the one true road we should follow to the shining horizon of communism.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Saying that the Democratic Party is socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

That’s why words have meanings, and why the actual definitions matter more than the words.

So because Bernie had close to half the democratic parties support and is a socialist. The democratic party isn't socialist.

Saying that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

But it's hard to point out how words and definitions matter, when people don't actually read or understand the words they are replying to.

Is anyone else confused by this logic?:

A portion of Democrats voted for Bernie the "socialist" = Democrats are socialist. (Never mind he lost the primary and did better in states where you did not have to be democrat to vote in the primary.)

The majority of Republicans vote for Trump...but he is NOT representative of the Republican party?


Edit: Added Quotes to "Socialist." Because one thing I learned from Dakka is how left the EU and Australia is compared to the US.

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Saying that the Democratic Party is socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

That’s why words have meanings, and why the actual definitions matter more than the words.

So because Bernie had close to half the democratic parties support and is a socialist. The democratic party isn't socialist.

Saying that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

But it's hard to point out how words and definitions matter, when people don't actually read or understand the words they are replying to.

In your opinion then, what is it that doesn't make Bernie a socialist?

 Xenomancers wrote:

By the way - I pulled this link out of a liberal article in favor of socialism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

This actually kind of makes me happy. It basically ensures that the democrats will never win another election in this country.

From the article:

"The question wording does not define "socialism" or "capitalism" but simply asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative."

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

By the way - I pulled this link out of a liberal article in favor of socialism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

This actually kind of makes me happy. It basically ensures that the democrats will never win another election in this country.

From the article:

"The question wording does not define "socialism" or "capitalism" but simply asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative."

Methinks it will be like when some republicans supported every individual aspect of the ACA when asked about them in surveys but then said they hated obamacare.

And really, is it surprising that people are less positive about capitalism? Reckless capitalists plunged the world into a recession then walked away having received massive bonuses for doing so, the difference in income between the bottom and the top has grown rapidly, leaving many behind etc.

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Saying that the Democratic Party is socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

That’s why words have meanings, and why the actual definitions matter more than the words.

So because Bernie had close to half the democratic parties support and is a socialist. The democratic party isn't socialist.

Saying that Bernie Sanders is a Socialist, because Bernie calls himself a socialist, is like claiming that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea really has a freely elected government with a non-hereditary head of state.

But it's hard to point out how words and definitions matter, when people don't actually read or understand the words they are replying to.

Why didn't you reply to the poll from Gallup that shows democrats prefer socialism to capitalism?

 d-usa wrote:
The key words, from my personal experience, are “on my day to day”.

The GOP loves to regulate other people’s day-to-day lives.

As does the Democrats/Progressives.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Is anyone else confused by this logic?:

A portion of Democrats voted for Bernie the "socialist" = Democrats are socialist. (Never mind he lost the primary and did better in states where you did not have to be democrat to vote in the primary.)

The majority of Republicans vote for Trump...but he is NOT representative of the Republican party?


Edit: Added Quotes to "Socialist." Because one thing I learned from Dakka is how left the EU and Australia is compared to the US.

Shush you, pointing out that kind of logical inconsistency in people's thinking is being a liberal coastal elite and is what pushes people further to the right.

 DrGiggles wrote:


In your opinion then, what is it that doesn't make Bernie a socialist?

- Doesn't support public ownership of the means of production.
- Voted to protect gun manufacturers from liabilities if their products are used for criminal purposes.
- Actually supports positions that are more in line with a Social Democracy, rather than actual Democratic Socialism.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

They destroyed all their political opponents. That is what complete government control is. The same thing happens in communism - because facism and communism are basically the same thing.

That is not true. Neither of the three statements you make here is. Go read a history book. Or Wikipedia if you don't have those.
1. The Nazis did not kill or destroy all of their political opponents. They only specifically targeted communists for extermination, but conservatives and liberals were left mostly unmolested unless they got too vocal in opposing Nazism.
2. A government does not need to destroy all its opponents to achieve total control. Rendering those opponents harmless, of even better, controlling them, is often far more effective than simply destroying them.
3. There is nothing even remotely similar in fascism and communism. They are polar opposites on the extreme ends of the left-right spectrum, there are literally no more different ideologies in the world. The only thing that they share in common is their position at the extreme end of their side and the utter hatred they feel for the other. Communism looks to the future, is anti-authoritarian (they aim to eventually abolish the state) and is internationalist (they focus on class instead of ethnicity and aim to abolish borders and nations). Fascism looks to the past, is highly authoritarian (they form a cult around a strong leader who personally controls everything) and is nationalist (they view their own ethnicity as superior to all others and aim to strengthen their nation at the cost of others if need be).

 AdeptSister wrote:
Is anyone else confused by this logic?:

A portion of Democrats voted for Bernie the "socialist" = Democrats are socialist. (Never mind he lost the primary and did better in states where you did not have to be democrat to vote in the primary.)

The majority of Republicans vote for Trump...but he is NOT representative of the Republican party?


Edit: Added Quotes to "Socialist." Because one thing I learned from Dakka is how left the EU and Australia is compared to the US.

He is a social democrat.

Much different from a socialist. Most Democrats even the ones that call themselves 'socialists' aren't.

For example I am a Social Democrat who wants to socialize certain parts of our society. Not all of it, somethings should be socialized like : Police, Fire, Healthcare, insurance, and Utilities (like the Internet, Water, and Electricity)

Bernie and Ocassion Cortez aren't actually calling for the real 'socalism' as there is a big difference between Socalism and Social Democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The key words, from my personal experience, are “on my day to day”.

The GOP loves to regulate other people’s day-to-day lives.

As does the Democrats/Progressives.

Proof? Because I am pretty sure Democrats don't give a crap about what you do in the bathroom or what you do when you don't want a baby. Republicians on the other hand do. Especially who you date.

Methinks it will be like when some republicans supported every individual aspect of the ACA when asked about them in surveys but then said they hated obamacare.

And really, is it surprising that people are less positive about capitalism? Reckless capitalists plunged the world into a recession then walked away having received massive bonuses for doing so, the difference in income between the bottom and the top has grown rapidly, leaving many behind etc.

Because any pure economic system is destined to fail.

If it remains unchanged and it continues down its current path the economy will have another recession. Its why we put regulations in to prevent it. Its essentially kinks in the system to be a stop gap for the economy to not be as dependent on certain problems like too many people retreving money form the banks after a stock market crash.

(This is an agreeance with you)

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

By the way - I pulled this link out of a liberal article in favor of socialism.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

This actually kind of makes me happy. It basically ensures that the democrats will never win another election in this country.

From the article:

"The question wording does not define "socialism" or "capitalism" but simply asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative."

Methinks it will be like when some republicans supported every individual aspect of the ACA when asked about them in surveys but then said they hated obamacare.

Haven't seen that poll - can you post it?

I mean - you can basically confuse people into answering a question wrong by asking really unfair questions. Plus - Obamacare sucks for a lot of reasons. Mainly it sucks because insurance companies are still involved in it. Insurance companies are the problem. For me - do I think that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare? Absolutely. The government should do something about it. Obamacare is not the answer though.

This is a normal distribution. Attributes of any population of sufficient size will generally fall into this pattern. So if you think that only a few people agree with you and lots don’t (particularly if they all disagree in the same way), then the simplest answer is that you are at the edge of the population.. Therefore you hold a minority view and are not representative of the population. It is far less likely that you are in the majority and it just so happens that none of the rest of the majority are bothering to turn up AND only one end of the two minorities is arguing with you.

Quick side question:

- Would you be in favor of legislative actions and executive policy reforms that decrease the tax burden on wealthy individuals and/or corporations, with the idea that increasing the amount of money available to wealthy individuals and/or corporations would result in that money being invested in the labor force resulting in higher wages and increased labor participation and a restoration of the middle class who will then have increased disposable income to support community businesses who will benefit from that spending? Would you be in favor of executive actions that artificially inflated the cost of products and materials produced in foreign countries to protect domestic companies and producers, who are then able to raise prices leading to an increase in the costs to consumers and keeping money spend increased prices within the United States rather than going to foreign countries?

- Would you be in favor of "wealth redistribution"?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

They destroyed all their political opponents. That is what complete government control is. The same thing happens in communism - because facism and communism are basically the same thing.

That is not true. Neither of the three statements you make here is. Go read a history book. Or Wikipedia if you don't have those.
1. The Nazis did not kill or destroy all of their political opponents. They only specifically targeted communists for extermination, but conservatives and liberals were left mostly unmolested unless they got too vocal in opposing Nazism.
2. A government does not need to destroy all its opponents to achieve total control. Rendering those opponents harmless, of even better, controlling them, is often far more effective than simply destroying them.
3. There is nothing even remotely similar in fascism and communism. They are polar opposites on the extreme ends of the left-right spectrum, there are literally no more different ideologies in the world. Communism looks to the future, is anti-authoritarian (they aim to eventually abolish the state) and is internationalist (they focus on class instead of ethnicity and aim to abolish borders and nations). Fascism looks to the past, is highly authoritarian (they form a cult around a strong leader who personally controls everything) and is nationalist (they view their own ethnicity as superior to all others and aim to strengthen their nation at the cost of others if need be).

Wow - I don't know how you could be more wrong.
Point 1 - yeah - Destroy does not mean kill if we are talking about political power. Seizing complete control is the exact same thing.
Point 2 - This is exactly what my rebuttal to your first statement is.
Point 3 - I think if you can't see the similarities you are willfully blind - or perhaps - lived under communism yourself and have a unique prospective - which isn't actually accurate. I respect your perspective, but it's wrong. Marx in fact - discribes socialism as a tranisition period to full blown communism. Socialism is literally pre- communism.

Point 3 - I think if you can't see the similarities you are willfully blind - or perhaps - lived under communism yourself and have a unique prospective - which isn't actually accurate. I respect your perspective, but it's wrong. Marx in fact - discribes socialism as a tranisition period to full blown communism. Socialism is literally pre- communism.

Yes but Marx was also an extreme idealist he believed in it and most of his writings were critiques of Capitalism. And most world economies are not 'true' socialist economies, none really are. They are more social democracies a mixed system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)

Socialism isn't a transition until it has that goal. Socialism can also go the otherway Its not a surefire way of going into communisum. (an extreme left). Socialism in a perfect society along with communisum would work. But ever since we are human it won't work. Hence Capitalism, which feeds on our desires and then social democracy appears to prevent and to act in the general good of the people.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by Social Democratic parties and their influence on socioeconomic policy development in the Nordic countries, in policy circles "social democracy" has become associated with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.[5]

 Jadenim wrote:


This is a normal distribution. Attributes of any population of sufficient size will generally fall into this pattern. So if you think that only a few people agree with you and lots don’t (particularly if they all disagree in the same way), then the simplest answer is that you are at the edge of the population.. Therefore you hold a minority view and are not representative of the population. It is far less likely that you are in the majority and it just so happens that none of the rest of the majority are bothering to turn up AND only one end of the two minorities is arguing with you.

Did Nazi Germany fall into this pattern? How about Soviet Russia? How about current Russia? When the government controls how you think (through controlling media) - people stop having minority opinions. People stop having opinions at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Point 3 - I think if you can't see the similarities you are willfully blind - or perhaps - lived under communism yourself and have a unique prospective - which isn't actually accurate. I respect your perspective, but it's wrong. Marx in fact - discribes socialism as a tranisition period to full blown communism. Socialism is literally pre- communism.

Yes but Marx was also an extreme idealist he believed in it and most of his writings were critiques of Capitalism. And most world economies are not 'true' socialist economies, none really are. They are more social democracies a mixed system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)

Socialism isn't a transition until it has that goal. Socialism can also go the otherway Its not a surefire way of going into communisum. (an extreme left). Socialism in a perfect society along with communisum would work. But ever since we are human it won't work. Hence Capitalism, which feeds on our desires and then social democracy appears to prevent and to act in the general good of the people.

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy; measures for income redistribution and regulation of the economy in the general interest; and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes.[4] Due to longstanding governance by Social Democratic parties and their influence on socioeconomic policy development in the Nordic countries, in policy circles "social democracy" has become associated with the Nordic model in the latter part of the 20th century.[5]

Humm - that sounds kind of like where the democratic party is right now. Forgive me if I feel like this is hogwash though. This is the natural process for progressive change. It already has a clear goal in mind and it is completely anti capitalistic.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Is anyone else confused by this logic?:

A portion of Democrats voted for Bernie the "socialist" = Democrats are socialist. (Never mind he lost the primary and did better in states where you did not have to be democrat to vote in the primary.)

The majority of Republicans vote for Trump...but he is NOT representative of the Republican party?

Don't forget the actual nazi ideology supporting Republicans running/standing as well.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Also - I am not sure why they have facism as a far right concept because it is not. The scale works basically by how much influence you want government to have over your day to day life - Fascism is complete government control - it is a far left concept. The way it works out is - it's basically communism with a evil dictator.

And with this it was aptly demonstrated how little you actually know about the topic you are trying to argue.

Do we really need to go over how the Nazi's and Italian fascists banned and/or murdered all the left-wing parties, such as the communists and social democrats, when they came to power?

They destroyed all their political opponents. That is what complete government control is. The same thing happens in communism - because facism and communism are basically the same thing.

That is not true. Neither of the three statements you make here is. Go read a history book. Or Wikipedia if you don't have those.
1. The Nazis did not kill or destroy all of their political opponents. They only specifically targeted communists for extermination, but conservatives and liberals were left mostly unmolested unless they got too vocal in opposing Nazism.
2. A government does not need to destroy all its opponents to achieve total control. Rendering those opponents harmless, of even better, controlling them, is often far more effective than simply destroying them.
3. There is nothing even remotely similar in fascism and communism. They are polar opposites on the extreme ends of the left-right spectrum, there are literally no more different ideologies in the world. Communism looks to the future, is anti-authoritarian (they aim to eventually abolish the state) and is internationalist (they focus on class instead of ethnicity and aim to abolish borders and nations). Fascism looks to the past, is highly authoritarian (they form a cult around a strong leader who personally controls everything) and is nationalist (they view their own ethnicity as superior to all others and aim to strengthen their nation at the cost of others if need be).

Wow - I don't know how you could be more wrong.
Point 1 - yeah - Destroy does not mean kill if we are talking about political power. Seizing complete control is the exact same thing.
Point 2 - This is exactly what my rebuttal to your first statement is.
Point 3 - I think if you can't see the similarities you are willfully blind - or perhaps - lived under communism yourself and have a unique prospective - which isn't actually accurate. I respect your perspective, but it's wrong. Marx in fact - discribes socialism as a tranisition period to full blown communism. Socialism is literally pre- communism.

No, you are wrong, and moving goalposts by trying to stretch the meaning of words won't change that. The verb "to destroy" means to render something non-existent. If you want to destroy a person, you have to kill them. You can't destroy someone without killing them. The Nazis tried to destroy communists. They did not try to destroy conservatives or liberals, who received much more tolerant treatments. This is historical fact that is easily looked up on the internet or in any reputable written history of the period.
If my second point is your rebuttal to your first point, then it is a really bad one, because controlling someone isn't quite the same as destroying someone.
As to the third point, you are right, socialism is the second stage of the road to communism. Both communism and fascism are birthed from capitalism, but this doesn't make communism and fascism even remotely similar. Socialism does share some distant similarities to fascism in that in both systems, the means of production are controlled by the state, but the way those means of production are controlled and to what end is completely different again. Socialist state control is exercised through worker's committees and aims to achieve communism to be free from those disgusting capitalists, fascist state control is exercised through wealthy monopolists and aims to achieve autarky to be free from those disgusting foreigners. Again, socialists ignore ethnicity to focus on class, fascists ignore class to focus on ethnicity. They are both extremes, but literal opposites. They could not be more different.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:


This is a normal distribution. Attributes of any population of sufficient size will generally fall into this pattern. So if you think that only a few people agree with you and lots don’t (particularly if they all disagree in the same way), then the simplest answer is that you are at the edge of the population.. Therefore you hold a minority view and are not representative of the population. It is far less likely that you are in the majority and it just so happens that none of the rest of the majority are bothering to turn up AND only one end of the two minorities is arguing with you.

Did Nazi Germany fall into this pattern? How about Soviet Russia? How about current Russia? When the government controls how you think (through controlling media) - people stop having minority opinions. People stop having opinions at all.

That is hilariously untrue. People never stop having opinions. If a government controls the media, the majority opinion simply shifts to being similar to the opinion of the government. Minority opinions will shift along accordingly. Basically, that graph is always true in any Human society.