the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really? Have you not noticed capitalism being promote by the wealthy?

Both are. But right now, it's people like the millionaires of the Democratic Party and the billionaires of the Davos Group that are doing the major promoting of Socialism...and I do not see those guys giving their money away to the common good, do you?

Do you see other millionaires and billionaires doing so?

Some, yeah. Bill Gates, for example, gives away millions every year, through the Gates Foundation.

But the important point is this: the billionaire Socialists claim that they want wealth redistributed; and maybe some Capitalists do not. But if the Socialists want wealth redistributed, why is it never THEIR wealth? They have it, and could easily hand it over to socialized medical plans, or to the public good, or just to charity. But they don't. Why not?

The Davos Group, for example, is the leading voice for global Socialism right now, but their members remain millionaires and billionaires. So how seriously can we take their commitment to Socialism?

And the various middle-class, First World Socialists we have right now, the rich whiners who imagine that global Socialism would get them free stuff: how seriously ought we to take them when two thirds of the world still lives in comparative poverty, and they continue to live comfortably, as middle class, the West: what do they know about what Socialism would require of them?

What happens to people whose medical needs aren't profitable?

Like?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=504117 time=1616620465 user_id=9431]
They have it, and could easily hand it over to socialized medical plans, or to the public good, or just to charity. But they don't. Why not?
[/quote]

Because throwing money at it in the current system would be wasting money. The framework has to change first before the money can do any real good.

[Immanuel Can]

They have it, and could easily hand it over to socialized medical plans, or to the public good, or just to charity. But they don't. Why not?

Because throwing money at it in the current system would be wasting money. The framework has to change first before the money can do any real good.

That's silly. They could donate it to the NHS in the form of a scanner or other medical equipment. They could give it to foreign aid programs run by the charity of their choice, for a noble cause. They could even just stand on the street and hand it out to the unemployed. There's a million ways to give away a million dollars...but they don't do it.

What they want is power. That's how Socialism always plays out: behind it is some cabal or dictator, just waiting to "level" the playing field, so that all possible others are powerless and the public is dependent on him.

[Scott Mayers]

You are absolutely hopeless. I linked that Washington Post article that you completely ignored.

The Right Needs to Stop Falsely Claiming that Nazis were Socialists

Here is one suggested placement of political ideologies from the Wikipedia entry:

Political Spectra.png (21.84 KiB) Viewed 1320 times

[Note though that "radical" isn't the correct term today. "Progressive" is. "radical" is a derogatory term that suggests the illustrator's possible bias.]


The source is from Political Spectrum
Read it. It explains how and why historical classifications had certain odd 'flips' of particular concepts within each division. Capitalism, for instance, was initially supported by the Left, for instance!

Your narrow interpretation needs adjustment. What should help is if you completely ignore ANY external definitions and try to begin from scratch by defining terms rather than using the external words. This is a philosophy forum and it would help if you could try this. But I doubt your sincerity.

What you could try is to give the TERMS you think align to the following meanings:

[term-01] = "a system of management that deals with the whole population of a country or nation."

[term-02] = "the belief that a [term-01] should favor the few"

[term-03] = "the belief that a [term-01] should favor the many"

[term-04] = "the belief that a [term-01] should be 'owned' by the few"

[term-05] = "the belief that a [term-01] should be 'owned' by the many"

[term-06] = "the belief that a [term-01] should provide aide to the poor through common taxation"

[term-07] = "the belief that a [term-01] should provide aide to the wealthy"

Because I doubt you would try this, I'm stopping at these seven for now. You fill in the labels and let's vote on its acceptance. Because the labels have emotive connotations, if any one of us, including others, can demand a change of the term. For instance, choosing the label "Evil" to one of the above terms would only demonstrate bias and be unacceptable if one is attempting to be sincerely neutral.

If you cannot try this, then there is no need to bother discussing anything political with you at all. I'm not sure if I'm going to participate. But this may help as a suggestion to develop an understanding or remove misunderstandings with any of us here. The MEANINGS are what should matter. It doesn't help if you had some association to a label that reminds you of someone you hate (or love) strongly.

[Immanuel Can]

You are absolutely hopeless. I linked that Washington Post article that you completely ignored.

That's because it's wrong. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 86455.html

What you could try is to give the TERMS you think align to the following meanings:

They're mostly irrelevant here, and I have no interest in wasting time. So I'll cut to the chase...

[term-05] = "the belief that a [term-01] should be 'owned' by the many"

That's the one that's closest to Socialism, but depending on what you think "owned by the many" means, maybe not. It's at best very sketchy and partial, and I wouldn't stand behind that one.

If you cannot try this, then there is no need to bother discussing anything political with you at all.

Do something more useful, then. Give me your definition of "Socialism."

[henry quirk]

You are absolutely hopeless. I linked that Washington Post article that you completely ignored.

That's because it's wrong. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 86455.html

What you could try is to give the TERMS you think align to the following meanings:

They're mostly irrelevant here, and I have no interest in wasting time. So I'll cut to the chase...

[term-05] = "the belief that a [term-01] should be 'owned' by the many"

That's the one that's closest to Socialism, but depending on what you think "owned by the many" means, maybe not. It's at best very sketchy and partial, and I wouldn't stand behind that one.

If you cannot try this, then there is no need to bother discussing anything political with you at all.

Do something more useful, then. *Give me your definition of "Socialism."

*Fat chance you'll get one. In this thread, only you and me have been bold enough to offer a defintion.

[Scott Mayers]

You are absolutely hopeless. I linked that Washington Post article that you completely ignored.

That's because it's wrong. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 86455.html

Two can play this game of yours: No that is 'wrong'.

What you could try is to give the TERMS you think align to the following meanings:

They're mostly irrelevant here, and I have no interest in wasting time. So I'll cut to the chase...
[/quote]
Then there is nothing more anyone can say to you nor that you can say that matters here. You will just have to begin by unveiling your identity before you can be taken further serious notice. You could just as easily be working for Putin to try to create friction online. If you are real, you shouldn't feel at risk for being yourself for what you believe is the vast majority's point of view!

[Scott Mayers]

You are absolutely hopeless. I linked that Washington Post article that you completely ignored.

That's because it's wrong. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 86455.html

What you could try is to give the TERMS you think align to the following meanings:

They're mostly irrelevant here, and I have no interest in wasting time. So I'll cut to the chase...

[term-05] = "the belief that a [term-01] should be 'owned' by the many"

That's the one that's closest to Socialism, but depending on what you think "owned by the many" means, maybe not. It's at best very sketchy and partial, and I wouldn't stand behind that one.

If you cannot try this, then there is no need to bother discussing anything political with you at all.

Do something more useful, then. *Give me your definition of "Socialism."

*Fat chance you'll get one. In this thread, only you and me have been bold enough to offer a defintion.

I haven't read anything you've said here. You tend to 'tweet' approval or disapproval without much content. If you've got something to define, lets' hear it.

I tend to trust that those who claim supposedly sincere popular conventions about their beliefs wouldn't feel a need to be anonymous.

[henry quirk]

That's because it's wrong. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 86455.html


They're mostly irrelevant here, and I have no interest in wasting time. So I'll cut to the chase...


That's the one that's closest to Socialism, but depending on what you think "owned by the many" means, maybe not. It's at best very sketchy and partial, and I wouldn't stand behind that one.


Do something more useful, then. *Give me your definition of "Socialism."

*Fat chance you'll get one. In this thread, only you and me have been bold enough to offer a defintion.

I haven't read anything you've said here. **You tend to 'tweet' approval or disapproval without much content. ***If you've got something to define, lets' hear it.

I tend to trust that those who claim supposedly sincere popular conventions about their beliefs wouldn't feel a need to be anonymous.

*Obviously.

**And you drone on and on and on, sayin' little.

***Already have, multiple times.

[Skepdick]

Ah, Immanuel Can's White Knight rides in. Who knows Skepdick? Perhaps the bleedin' obvious will be more persuasive from you than me.

Look, ma!

Every time somebody says something that triggers me I divvy up the playing field into "us" and "them"!

[Immanuel Can]

What you could try is to give the TERMS you think align to the following meanings:

They're mostly irrelevant here, and I have no interest in wasting time. So I'll cut to the chase...

Then there is nothing more anyone can say to you...[/quote]
What was the relevance? You listed a bunch of very short phrases, and asked me to name them? But none of them actually was an adequate description of any political system.

So what was the point?

[tillingborn]

...the important point is this: the billionaire Socialists claim that they want wealth redistributed; and maybe some Capitalists do not. But if the Socialists want wealth redistributed, why is it never THEIR wealth? They have it, and could easily hand it over to socialized medical plans, or to the public good, or just to charity. But they don't. Why not?

We were talking about the BBC and the NHS, two institutions which in the UK have popular support. Why is the fact that some rich people don't practise what they preach "the important point"? Do you honestly think I should be more concerned about some rich people's hypocrisy than I should be about the health of my nation, or even if my TV viewing is interrupted by adverts?

The Davos Group, for example, is the leading voice for global Socialism right now, but their members remain millionaires and billionaires. So how seriously can we take their commitment to Socialism?

And the various middle-class, First World Socialists we have right now, the rich whiners who imagine that global Socialism would get them free stuff: how seriously ought we to take them when two thirds of the world still lives in comparative poverty, and they continue to live comfortably, as middle class, the West: what do they know about what Socialism would require of them?

Is it your opinion that "the rich whiners" make the BBC and NHS bad things? In a free society, would you prohibit people voluntarily banding together to provide good quality TV and universal healthcare?

What happens to people whose medical needs aren't profitable?

Like?

It's not a trick question. What in your view should happen to people who cannot afford medical treatment?

[tillingborn]

Ah, Immanuel Can's White Knight rides in. Who knows Skepdick? Perhaps the bleedin' obvious will be more persuasive from you than me.

Look, ma!

Every time somebody says something that triggers me I divvy up the playing field into "us" and "them"!

As I said, I will create a narrative that is consistent with the facts that present themselves and will change it if new information comes to light.

[Skepdick]

As I said, I will create a narrative that is consistent with the facts that present themselves and will change it if new information comes to light.

Consistency isn't the issue here. It's the embellishment of facts I am pointing at.

Where in the "facts" did you see me involving Immanuel Can?

Perhaps you'll recognise the narrator's own input into the narrative...

[Immanuel Can]

...the important point is this: the billionaire Socialists claim that they want wealth redistributed; and maybe some Capitalists do not. But if the Socialists want wealth redistributed, why is it never THEIR wealth? They have it, and could easily hand it over to socialized medical plans, or to the public good, or just to charity. But they don't. Why not?

We were talking about the BBC and the NHS,

I don't really know why. They're not exemplars of Socialist economics. They're merely socialized elements totally dependent on a broadly Capitalistic system. As such, they make no argument for Socialist economics, because they're on life-support from Capitalism.

Do you honestly think I should be more concerned about some rich people's hypocrisy

Well, if you're going to follow their lead, and go to Socialism, you should know why they are trying to get you there, and what they hope to gain when they do. You can be quite sure it's not for the health of your nation. They're not a pack of altruists, as you can tell by what they're already doing.

What happens to people whose medical needs aren't profitable?

Like?

It's not a trick question.

I didn't say it was. I'm saying, "Give me a real example." That should be easy.