Carnism as compared to Statism

[teo123]

He was talking about Nicaragua, not the Soviet Union.

What difference does that make? As far as I can see, he was talking about both.

Besides, his comment was more to criticise the policies of the United States rather than to praise Nicaragua.

Er... no, see his quote.

No he wasn't. He lost the 1932 Presidential election to Hindenburg and was later appointed chancellor and then merged the two offices of president and chancellor into the office of fuehrer after Hindenburg's death.

Yes, fine, there are no true democracies. Hitler was "elected" in the same sense Trump was "elected", the majority of the people (although not the vast majority) voted against him, yet there were some nonsensical laws that made him get power.
Completely democratic societies don't exist, and they shouldn't exist. Should an entire town get to vote on whether you should be allowed to sell your own house? Making societies more democratic is not the solution.

I'd say that there is also a clear distinction to be made between Venezuela and other countries with democratically elected socialist governments, such as in regard to their protectionist economic policies

Can you elaborate on that?

I said that you were going to have a hard time convincing anybody that they've manipulated statistics to make it appear as though Venezuela is a mixed economy.

Why? We know they manipulated the statistics to make socialism look good once, so why not again?

It depends who's defining it. Where are you getting that definition from?

OK, so, what do you think is a proper definition of capitalism? Equating capitalism with "economic freedom" is perhaps rather accurate. A definition usually cited in dictionaries appears to be something related to private property. That, if you ask me, makes sense only under the mantra "You have nothing if you have no rights.". If you "own" something, but some arbitrary laws prevent you from using it or selling it, then that's not really capitalism.
Economic freedom is a little hard to define, most definitions include the rule of law in it. That is, that the government doesn't do whatever the ruler wants it to do, but that there are some laws above the ruler. What Donald Trump did to Huawei would then be a violation of the rule of law. Now, rule of law is often extended to include the government protecting the victims of thefts... and, if you ask me, that's where the definition becomes self-contradictory, for the government needs to have some resources in order to protect people from crime, and that resources need to be taken from the people who probably don't want to give a part of their ownership to the government.
Socialism, on the other hand, is usually defined in the dictionaries as a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state. I think we can agree that this definition is very loaded. First, what are the "means of production"? Can I "own" a hammer under socialism or not? Hammer can be used as means of production, but it doesn't have to. Second, what is the "state"? All the people inside a country? By that logic, was what was happening during the Holodomor, people being killed for "stealing" some grain from a silo they "own", socialism or not? What does "collective ownership" even mean? What should happen when people who "own" something disagree on what should be done with that? Or is the "state" a small group of people chosen to rule because of their ability?
I think that, in praxis, what people mean when they say "socialism" is "opposition to economic freedom". "Socialism" is the term usually applied to things like high taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-sweatshop movements (no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work), nonsensical regulation, redistribution of wealth, and so on. I am not sure many people would agree that Holodomor was socialism. Though many would agree it was an unwanted result of the socialist policies.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

What difference does that make? As far as I can see, he was talking about both.

What makes you say that?

Er... no, see his quote.

“You know, it’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food, that’s a good thing. In other countries people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food, and the poor starve to death.”

His praising of Nicaragua was more to direct criticism towards the policies of other countries (such as the USA) than to state that he agrees with communism.

Yes, fine, there are no true democracies. Hitler was "elected" in the same sense Trump was "elected",

I don't agree with the electoral college, however, Trump won the election due to the fact that America uses that system, therefore he can be said to have been elected. Hitler, however, did not win an election, even one that goes by nonsensical rules (although as a matter of fact, the Weimar Republic had a pretty good electoral system; it was more other things such as Article 48 that were the problem), therefore it's completely inaccurate to state that he was elected.

Completely democratic societies don't exist, and they shouldn't exist. Should an entire town get to vote on whether you should be allowed to sell your own house? Making societies more democratic is not the solution.

You can make societies more democratic without establishing direct democracy. For instance, you can have a system of proportional representation, such as in Germany. I went into more detail about this in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4853&p=43187

Can you elaborate on that?

The policies put in place in Venezuela of extreme protectionism, rapid nationalisation (in contrast to the moderate nationalisation pursued by the likes of Clement Attlee and Evo Morales) and authoritarianism are clearly very different to the policies put in place in other socialist countries with democratically elected governments.

Why? We know they manipulated the statistics to make socialism look good once, so why not again?

What makes you say that you know that?

Assuming that they did manipulate the statistics before, there's still no reason to assume that they would do it again. Using that logic, since the Conservative Party in Britain once advocated for policies regarding a mixed economy and a strongly funded welfare state, they must be doing that at the minute. Obviously, this is not the case as the Conservative Party has gone through many changes in recent years. Even if there was a time when the UN was in favour of socialism, there's no reason to believe that they are now, especially given the fact that Saudi-Arabia is shown to have higher than average levels of public ownership (35.3%) when this is not a socialist country, nor a country which is generally viewed positively..

OK, so, what do you think is a proper definition of capitalism?

I define capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production. I wouldn't say that this is a *proper* definition as such, but this is the definition that is traditionally used. Definitions are pretty arbitrary and one could very easily define capitalism as "When you take a shit and the toilet water hits your ass", however, I think using a definition other than the one I described isn't particularly effective at advancing any particular position. If you believe in voluntarism, then defining voluntarism as synonymous with capitalism can be confusing as it defines things that are traditionally considered capitalist as anti-capitalist. As I pointed out, it would make Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet anti-capitalists. This doesn't necessarily make your definition of capitalism "wrong" as such, as "capitalism" at the end of the day is just a word, however, it would be the equivalent of using a definition of communism that excludes Marx or a definition of fascism that excludes Mussolini.

Equating capitalism with "economic freedom" is perhaps rather accurate. A definition usually cited in dictionaries appears to be something related to private property. That, if you ask me, makes sense only under the mantra "You have nothing if you have no rights.". If you "own" something, but some arbitrary laws prevent you from using it or selling it, then that's not really capitalism.

Again, if you have a definition like that, then it's going to mean that a lot of people will be alienated by your views as it excludes things that are traditionally defined as capitalist.

Socialism, on the other hand, is usually defined in the dictionaries as a system where the means of production and distribution are owned by the state.

Which dictionaries are you referring to? Most definitions I have seen describe the means of production being owned by the workers.

First, what are the "means of production"? Can I "own" a hammer under socialism or not? Hammer can be used as means of production, but it doesn't have to.

You can own a hammer regardless of whether it is being used as a means of production. You can not, however, get somebody else to use your hammer as a means of production whilst profiting off of their labour.

By that logic, was what was happening during the Holodomor, people being killed for "stealing" some grain from a silo they "own", socialism or not?

As you go on to state, the Holodomor was an unwanted result of socialist policies, however, those aren't the sort of policies that every socialist leader has implemented.

What does "collective ownership" even mean? What should happen when people who "own" something disagree on what should be done with that?

They would most likely have a vote on what should be done.

I think that, in praxis, what people mean when they say "socialism" is "opposition to economic freedom". "Socialism" is the term usually applied to things like high taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-sweatshop movements (no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work), nonsensical regulation, redistribution of wealth, and so on.

High taxes, minimum wage laws, etc. may be what some people refer to as "socialism", however, under that definition, the Conservative governments of the early 1950s to late 1970s would be considered "socialist" as well as many other governments and parties that most people wouldn't consider socialist. Again, the fact that most people would disagree with those things being defined as "socialist" doesn't make the definition wrong as no definition can be proven to be wrong, however, it does mean that you're going to alienate a lot of people.

(no need for "state" in order to boycott sweatshops, obviously, but it clearly restricts where poor people can choose to work)

If you're going to voluntarily boycott sweatshops, then assuming those boycotts are successful, that's going to have no less of an impact on where poor people can choose to work than if the state gets involved.

[teo123]

His praising of Nicaragua was more to direct criticism towards the policies of other countries (such as the USA) than to state that he agrees with communism.

What policies of the USA? At best, you can say he criticized the *lack* of policies.

therefore it's completely inaccurate to state that he was elected.

Look, you are claiming democracies prevent incompetent/malevolent people from coming into power, right? Well, the fact that Hitler and Maduro did get to power legally in a democratic society shows kind of falsifies that claim. And if you claim that "Well, that wasn't true democracy.", then you probably should define what you mean by "true democracy", and you should show some statistics that show that closer a country gets to it, the less likely it becomes that malevolent and incompetent people come to power. I don't see any reason for it to be the case under any sensible definition of democracy.
There are such statistics for economic freedom, that are supposed to show that more capitalistic some country is, the wealthier and more peaceful it tends to be. And, yes, the USA is almost never among the first ten, and Norway is usually the first. And Hong Kong, which is not a democracy at all, almost always ranks higher than the USA.

The policies put in place in Venezuela of extreme protectionism, rapid nationalisation (in contrast to the moderate nationalisation pursued by the likes of Clement Attlee and Evo Morales) and authoritarianism are clearly very different to the policies put in place in other socialist countries with democratically elected governments.

And yet the Maduro's government is a democratically elected socialist government, which shows that democratically elected socialist governments are not necessarily good. If we implement socialism in the US or in Croatia, what's there to guarantee us we won't end up like Venezuela?

Obviously, this is not the case as the Conservative Party has gone through many changes in recent years.

I wouldn't be so sure that's the case. It may be just the public perception that has changed. Like when Hillary Clinton was against homosexual marriage just months before she got nominated, and Trump was openly pro-universal-healthcare a few years before he got elected. There is a gap between what people think some political party believes and what it actually believes. Most people would say Republicans oppose the minimum wage, when most Republicans actually support it.

Even if there was a time when the UN was in favour of socialism, there's no reason to believe that they are now, especially given the fact that Saudi-Arabia is shown to have higher than average levels of public ownership (35.3%) when this is not a socialist country, nor a country which is generally viewed positively..

Of course, there are other factors. Countries with many Muslims tend to be viewed negatively by the UN. The political system of Albania was rather similar to that of the USSR, yet Albania wasn't looked positively, but USSR was.

As I pointed out, it would make Thatcher, Reagan and Pinochet anti-capitalists.

I wonder how many people today actually know what their policies were. There might just be some common misconception about their policies. You know, like most people today believe Hoover was lassais-faire, when that couldn't be further from the truth: he tried to fight the Great Depression using basically some form of Trickle-Down Economics.

Hoover received the Republican presidential nomination, despite the objections of conservatives opposed to his departure from the party’s traditional laissez-faire philosophy.
(...)
In 1931 he backed creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC, established 1932), a large-scale lending institution intended to help banks and industries and thereby promote a general recovery.

I don't know enough about politics to tell for certain if that's the case with the guys you mention (I haven't even heard of them), but it seems to me it could be.

definition of communism that excludes Marx

So, you think it doesn't make sense to say that Christian Fundamentalists are more communist than the Communists?

Which dictionaries are you referring to?

The Collins English dictionary.

You can not, however, get somebody else to use your hammer as a means of production whilst profiting off of their labour.

So, letting somebody use your hammer while he/she is fixing your bed or your desk is somehow a bad thing?

those aren't the sort of policies that every socialist leader has implemented.

Mere common ownership of land is bad for agriculture, it makes it hard to make harvests happen at the right time. That's why American Indians often suffered from famines, and that's how Thanksgiving got established.
Kind of a fun fact, Tito got in conflict with Stalin for allegedly being too revolutionary, even though Tito didn't make private ownership of land illegal, while Stalin (and I think Lenin before him) did. And Tito didn't get to power democratically, but by overthrowing the Fascist government of Pavelic. It's hard to predict whether a socialist government would end up being a disaster, or merely bad.

They would most likely have a vote on what should be done.

Why would people bother to vote, yet alone inform themselves before they vote? They realize the chance of their vote affecting the outcome is basically zero.

[teo123]

Honestly, @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I've always hoped that socialism and support for Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez weren't the actual positions of many people. I've thought they were misrepresentations of the beliefs of the Democratic party (much like the trickle-down-economics is a misrepresentation of the beliefs of Republicans and libertarians), or, at best, the positions of the very uneducated (who will stop supporting Sanders or Cortez as soon as they hear what he or she actually has to say). Thank you for breaking that illusion in me, but I am not interested much in discussing those things further.
@Cheers!

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

What policies of the USA? At best, you can say he criticized the *lack* of policies.

Taking the action of not enacting a particular policy is in itself a policy. Regardless, it doesn't make any difference. It certainly doesn't mean that Sanders holds the same ideology as Nicaragua. He only praised them in order to contrast their policies to that of the United States. He has done the same thing in more recent years with Dwight D. Eisenhower, who he certainly does not share the same ideology as.

Look, you are claiming democracies prevent incompetent/malevolent people from coming into power, right?

No. I don't think any system could prevent that from being a possibility. Democracy is the worst form of government that there is, except for all the others.

There are such statistics for economic freedom, that are supposed to show that more capitalistic some country is, the wealthier and more peaceful it tends to be. And, yes, the USA is almost never among the first ten, and Norway is usually the first. And Hong Kong, which is not a democracy at all, almost always ranks higher than the USA.

I think you're referring to the Economic Freedom Index, for which I would recommend this video about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTZezOhgLNg

And yet the Maduro's government is a democratically elected socialist government, which shows that democratically elected socialist governments are not necessarily good.

I don't think any forms of government, no matter how successful they have had a record of being, are necessarily good. For any particular political ideology, you can find examples of countries where it has failed. The only exceptions to this are political ideologies which have never had governments attempt to implement them.

If we implement socialism in the US or in Croatia, what's there to guarantee us we won't end up like Venezuela?

Implementing it in a similar fashion to the governments that have been successful in implementing it, such as those of Attlee, Wilson, Gerhardsen, Palme, Allende, Morales. etc.

I wouldn't be so sure that's the case. It may be just the public perception that has changed.

Perception has largely changed due to the fact that the policies of the Conservative Party have changed, rather than the other way round. Before the Falklands war, perception of the right-wing policies of the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher were largely negative, and Michael Foot's left-wing Labour Party was leading in the polls.

Of course, there are other factors. Countries with many Muslims tend to be viewed negatively by the UN. The political system of Albania was rather similar to that of the USSR, yet Albania wasn't looked positively, but USSR was.

I'm not sure how the UN succeed in making Saudi-Arabia look bad by showing that they have higher than average levels of public ownership. As well as that, I think Saudi-Arabia is doing a fairly good job of making themselves look bad.

I wonder how many people today actually know what their policies were. There might just be some common misconception about their policies.

No, it's more to do with the fact that most people don't define capitalism the same way you do.

I don't know enough about politics to tell for certain if that's the case with the guys you mention (I haven't even heard of them), but it seems to me it could be.

Well, Ronald Reagan (Perhaps you didn't know who he was because I only referred to him by only his last name as I'd be surprised if you'd heard of Hoover but not Reagan), Margaret Thatcher and Augusto Pinochet were very much in favour of investing in the military without gaining prior consent of the people whose money they were taking to fund it, which you define as anti-capitalist.

So, you think it doesn't make sense to say that Christian Fundamentalists are more communist than the Communists?

Maybe in a metaphorical sense, but certainly not in a literal sense.

The Collins English dictionary.

That is only one dictionary.

So, letting somebody use your hammer while he/she is fixing your bed or your desk is somehow a bad thing?

What I meant by not getting somebody else to use your hammer as a means of production whilst profiting off of their labour was more along the lines of having a business where somebody uses that hammer to fix beds and desks and such whilst you earn the money that somebody else has produced with their labour. In that case, there is a parasite which is not needed. It doesn't really matter who the hammer belongs to. Worker ownership of the means of production refers more to workers being able to profit off of the labour that they produced.

Mere common ownership of land is bad for agriculture, it makes it hard to make harvests happen at the right time. That's why American Indians often suffered from famines, and that's how Thanksgiving got established.

I don't know to what extent that is true. However, I am not in favour of land being one of the first things to be brought under common ownership.

Why would people bother to vote, yet alone inform themselves before they vote? They realize the chance of their vote affecting the outcome is basically zero.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Honestly, @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I've always hoped that socialism and support for Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez weren't the actual positions of many people.

I am not many people, so me supporting socialism, Bernie and AOC doesn't disprove that hope. That being said, many people are socialists and many people support Bernie and AOC.

I've thought they were misrepresentations of the beliefs of the Democratic party

I'm not an American, and thus not a Democrat, so I certainly can't have disproved that belief. As well as that, they are misrepresentations of the beliefs of some in the Democratic Party. Many try to make out that their beliefs are the same as those of centrist Democrats like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Biden when none of these people are socialists or even social democrats like Bernie and AOC.

(much like the trickle-down-economics is a misrepresentation of the beliefs of Republicans and libertarians),

I don't know why you think that.

Go try to sell your socialist propaganda to the people of Ukraine, you ignorant bigot! Or if, most likely, you are a liar and you know socialism doesn't work, then think of the consequences of your words and go fuck yourself!

I'm not sure why you decided to hide this message (for anyone wondering, if you quote teo's reply, this delightful gem can be seen). Honestly, I'm rather disappointed in you. I was going to give you points for at least being civil, but then you go and pull a stunt like that. I know that you're not well liked on this forum and now I can see why.

I hope that you now realise the full extent to which the consequences of words truly matter. @Cheers!

[teo123]

It certainly doesn't mean that Sanders holds the same ideology as Nicaragua.

Not all the parts of that ideology, but he agrees that people should be lining up for bread. Do I even need to explain why that's crazy? People, if they need to wait in long lines for basic products, they don't have time to work. And if people don't have time to work, there come shortages of the things they would otherwise produce.

I think you're referring to the Economic Freedom Index, for which I would recommend this video about:

I am not willing to watch videos over a metered and slow connection. What points are brought up in that video?
And if that's the usual "Rich countries get rich on the back of the poor countries." nonsense, allow me to quote Thomas Sowell: "There is a simple test whether Marxism is true. Do the countries with more rich people tend to have more poor people? And the answer is clearly no.".

For any particular political ideology, you can find examples of countries where it has failed.

Yes, no matter how the society is organized, there will be some failures of it, because people will always behave irrationally.
However, not every ideology fails as bad. Fascism and Nazism fail (or, better say, succeed at killing countless innocent people) spectacularly. The fascist government of Ante Pavelic killed around 300'000 people (around 8% of the Croatian population) in the short period of four years, about half of them were killed in concentration camps, and about half of them simply starved to death. Socialism fails, but not as spectacularly.
The socialist government of Josip Broz Tito killed around 100'000 Croatians in Bleiburg, and perhaps as many people elsewhere (cleaning Croatia of potential fascists, which included everybody of German and Italian nationality), over a period of few decades. And notice that Josip Broz Tito probably didn't know what was going on in Bleiburg, yet alone have a control of it, because he sent a letter instructing his comrades not to kill the prisoners of war (yet nobody was held accountable, and it was forbidden to talk publicly about it for decades).
Has capitalism failed in Croatia? Maybe. But not nearly as badly as fascism and socialism failed. It's a completely different kind of failure. The economic results may be suboptimal, but nobody is starving or is being murdered in gulags or concentration camps. OK, you can perhaps say the current Croatian government is responsible for Varivode Massacre killing a few tens of people, but that's nothing compared to what the socialist and the fascist governments were doing. And you can hardly argue Varivode was caused by capitalism.
Has capitalism failed in the United States before the Great Depression? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it did, that the Great Depression is a failure of capitalism. So what? It did not fail remotely as badly as socialism failed in Ukraine in that same time period, and it's quite easy to argue Holodomor was caused by socialist policies.

and Michael Foot's left-wing Labour Party was leading in the polls.

Another argument against democracy might be that the intellectuals in capitalist societies, which influence public opinion, very often support tyrants in other countries. This has always been true, many intellectuals in Athens supported the Spartan regime.

As well as that, I think Saudi-Arabia is doing a fairly good job of making themselves look bad.

How? By disagreeing with the UN policies of making Palestinians pay the Hitler's crimes with their own land?

Perhaps you didn't know who he was because I only referred to him by only his last name as I'd be surprised if you'd heard of Hoover but not Reagan

I mean, I've heard of Reagan, but I don't know what his policies were. The only thing I know about him is that he liked to tell jokes about the life in the Soviet Union. I guess he was a Republican then, but I don't have the time to look that up, I have a lot of things to do in real life, and the cellular Internet here is slow as hell. Why is that important?

were very much in favour of investing in the military without gaining prior consent of the people whose money they were taking to fund it, which you define as anti-capitalist.

You realize that's anti-capitalist even if you define capitalism as a system based on private ownership? Military is not privately owned, it's an expansion of government.

Worker ownership of the means of production refers more to workers being able to profit off of the labour that they produced.

Well, if the workers aren't profiting of their labour, they won't be working. That's why the workers were constantly protesting during communism in Croatia, because the Communist Party controlled everything and did not allow them to profit of their labour.

That is only one dictionary.

And which ones are you referring to?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

You said workers should democratically decide what happens with the factories they are working in, right? So, I asked, why would they bother to inform themselves and to vote, if they know the chances of their vote affecting the outcome is basically zero?

Many try to make out that their beliefs are the same as those of centrist Democrats like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Biden

Well, they are way more reasonable than Sanders or AOC. Minus perhaps Hillary, with her anti-homosexual comments and pro-war comments.

I don't know why you think that.

Because libertarians, as well as most of the Republicans, don't support trickle-down economics. They don't support increasing taxes on the rich because they think that what will happen is what happened in the 1950s: rich people hiring lawyers to get all sorts of tax exceptions, while the poor continued to pay their taxes.

Honestly, I'm rather disappointed in you.

Ok, fine, I'm sorry, that was a bit offensive. Still, don't you think that defending the ideology that killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century is by orders of magnitude more offensive? And would you even respond to me if I hadn't written that? And if you think that was so offensive, why are you copying from me?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Not all the parts of that ideology, but he agrees that people should be lining up for bread. Do I even need to explain why that's crazy? People, if they need to wait in long lines for basic products, they don't have time to work. And if people don't have time to work, there come shortages of the things they would otherwise produce.

I agree, however he is only saying that it is a good thing in regard to it being better than what is happening in other countries.

And if that's the usual "Rich countries get rich on the back of the poor countries." nonsense, allow me to quote Thomas Sowell: "There is a simple test whether Marxism is true. Do the countries with more rich people tend to have more poor people? And the answer is clearly no.".

I'm not sure how that quote relates to the argument.

Yes, no matter how the society is organized, there will be some failures of it, because people will always behave irrationally. However, not every ideology fails as bad.

You've only given the example of one country. Socialism did not fail in Britain because the governments of Attlee and Wilson did not adopt the policies of communist countries that had failed.

As well as that, according to your definitions, no country on earth is, or has ever been, capitalist.

Has capitalism failed in the United States before the Great Depression? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it did, that the Great Depression is a failure of capitalism. So what? It did not fail remotely as badly as socialism failed in Ukraine in that same time period, and it's quite easy to argue Holodomor was caused by socialist policies.

Communism has failed, and communism is a socialist ideology. However, this does not make socialism itself a failure. It would be like saying that anti-communism is a failure because fascism is an anti-communist ideology that has failed.

Another argument against democracy might be that the intellectuals in capitalist societies, which influence public opinion, very often support tyrants in other countries. This has always been true, many intellectuals in Athens supported the Spartan regime.

I'm not sure how that relates to anything I was saying, let alone the bit you quoted. I'm also not sure how this fault is in any way peculiar to democratic societies.

How? By disagreeing with the UN policies of making Palestinians pay the Hitler's crimes with their own land?

No. I was more referring to the fact that they throw LGBTQ+ off of buildings, flog anybody who questions the religion of Islam, flog people for "sexual deviance" and drunkenness, flog women for committing adultery (often these women have actually been raped and simply can't prove it), treat women as second-class citizens, promote antisemitic racism, practice literal witch hunts, don't allow freedom of speech, murder journalists opposed to their regime, massacre innocent people in Yemen, actively oppress Shia Muslims and jail people who criticise the oppression and amputate the hands and feet of thieves.

I mean, I've heard of Reagan, but I don't know what his policies were.

Large reductions in taxing and spending mostly.

Why is that important?

It isn't. I'm just rather surprised. Are there not that many books about him in Croatia?

You realize that's anti-capitalist even if you define capitalism as a system based on private ownership? Military is not privately owned, it's an expansion of government.

Capitalism being a system based on private ownership does not mean that literally everything has to be privately owned in order for a country to be considered capitalist.

Well, if the workers aren't profiting of their labour, they won't be working.

Nobody has claimed that workers aren't profiting off of their labour under capitalism. However, a large amount of the wealth that they have produced is taken by the capitalist business owners who profit off of the workers' labour at their expense.

And which ones are you referring to?

I didn't refer to dictionaries but to definitions. Socialism is defined as the common ownership of the means of production by the original Clause IV of the Labour Party's constitution and also by the vast majority of people who consider themselves socialists that have defined the word. Wikipedia also defines it in that manner, and yes, Wikipedia isn't always reliable, but they've cited nine sources.

You said workers should democratically decide what happens with the factories they are working in, right? So, I asked, why would they bother to inform themselves and to vote, if they know the chances of their vote affecting the outcome is basically zero?

I still don't know what you mean. Why do you believe that the chances of their vote affecting the outcome would be basically zero?

Well, they are way more reasonable than Sanders or AOC.

I disagree, except on certain issues such as nuclear energy which is one of the few areas in which I am more inclined to agree with centrist Democrats (although certain centrist Democrats also oppose nuclear energy, such as Kirsten Gillibrand and Al Gore).

Minus perhaps Hillary, with her anti-homosexual comments and pro-war comments.

The other three aren't much better in those areas. Biden is arguably the worst due to his support for segregation and refusal to apologise for it.

Because libertarians, as well as most of the Republicans, don't support trickle-down economics. They don't support increasing taxes on the rich because they think that what will happen is what happened in the 1950s: rich people hiring lawyers to get all sorts of tax exceptions, while the poor continued to pay their taxes.

That may be one reason, but another reason I've seen Republicans and Libertarians advocate for lowering taxes is due to the idea that business will be able to higher more people and the poor will become richer, thus the wealth trickles down.

Ok, fine, I'm sorry, that was a bit offensive.

If you were actually sorry, you would have ended your apology there rather than making excuses for your behaviour. If your behavior were excusable, then an apology would not have been warranted. As it stands, it appears that you do believe that I am an ignorant bigot and/or a liar, and if that is the case, I'd rather you explained why you believe that about me rather than pretending to apologise.

Still, don't you think that defending the ideology that killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century is by orders of magnitude more offensive?

I haven't defended the ideology of the regimes that killed tens of millions of people. I have defended socialism, which the ideologies of those regimes are based upon, however, the ideologies of fascist regimes were based upon anti-communism. Does that mean that any anti-communists are defending an ideology that killed tens of millions of people? Of course not. By supporting socialism, I am defending an ideology that killed tens of millions of people in the 20th century about as much as either of us are by supporting anti-communism.

And would you even respond to me if I hadn't written that?

Yes. Hence the fact that I would not be able to see that message if I didn't respond to you.

And if you think that was so offensive, why are you copying from me?

I didn't find it offensive so much as I found it silly. You came across like a caricature of a right-winger.

How was I copying from you? Your hidden message was an insult. My hidden message was a quote from Albert Einstein. Even if I did insult you in return, the two insults would hardly be comparable as yours was an unprovoked insult whereas mine would have been meant as a retaliation.

@Cheers!

[teo123]

I don't have time to respond to all what you are saying, I'll just try to respond to the most important points.

I'm not sure how that quote relates to the argument.

Because Marxism argues that rich can only get richer if poor get poorer. That's obviously wrong if applied within countries (countries with a lot of rich people tend to have fewer poor people), and it's therefore wrong if applied between countries (if we claim rich countries get richer because poor countries get poorer).

However, a large amount of the wealth that they have produced is taken by the capitalist business owners who profit off of the workers' labour at their expense.

At their expense, you say? Well, if nobody had built the factory, chances are, the workers would be making way less money than they make.

Why do you believe that the chances of their vote affecting the outcome would be basically zero?

Because, if there are x workers in a factory, the chances of any particular vote of a worker affecting the outcome would be, correct me if I am wrong, (x C (x/2))/(2^x). If there are 300 workers, that probability is below 5%. And that's ignoring the fact that ill-informed people tend to be biased towards bad policies, so, in reality, that probability is even lower. It's just not worth informing yourself before you vote just in case your vote happens to affect the outcome.

Does that mean that any anti-communists are defending an ideology that killed tens of millions of people?

You do realize that fascism and communism have quite a lot in common? "Nazism" is short for "national socialism". The philosopher of fascism, Giovanni Gentile, was very much against economic freedom, claiming, just like Karl Marx, that economic freedom hurts the workers. In Germany, the Nazi party was also known as the "Worker Party". Both Giovanni Gentile and Karl Marx drew their ideas heavily from Hegel. And so on...

ZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzYou came across like a caricature of a right-winger.

What do you mean I am a right-winger? A right-winger won't state the obvious fact that Republicans are profoundly anti-capitalist, and would probably praise Hillary for her anti-homosexual and pro-war comments.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

I don't have time to respond to all what you are saying, I'll just try to respond to the most important points.

Why didn't you think my point about Saudi Arabia was important?

Because Marxism argues that rich can only get richer if poor get poorer. That's obviously wrong if applied within countries (countries with a lot of rich people tend to have fewer poor people), and it's therefore wrong if applied between countries (if we claim rich countries get richer because poor countries get poorer).

I don't see how it's wrong within countries, and even if it were, how that would make it wrong between countries.

At their expense, you say? Well, if nobody had built the factory, chances are, the workers would be making way less money than they make.

Who do you think builds the factories?

Because, if there are x workers in a factory, the chances of any particular vote of a worker affecting the outcome would be, correct me if I am wrong, (x C (x/2))/(2^x). If there are 300 workers, that probability is below 5%.

It's much lower in nationwide elections.

You do realize that fascism and communism have quite a lot in common?

In theory, no. In practice, somewhat. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that fascism and Nazism both have a deep hatred of communism at the core of their philosophies.

"Nazism" is short for "national socialism".

Yes, and they weren't socialists. Just like "Pravda" was Russian for "Truth", but it hardly contained the truth.

Their idea of socialism was based on the Prussian socialism of Oswald Spengler who developed an ideology centred mainly around nationalism. He despised Karl Marx, whose philosophy he had viewed as too influenced by the English (as Marx had made his home in London). Like Spengler, Hitler's own definition of socialism centred around nationalism.

The philosopher of fascism, Giovanni Gentile, was very much against economic freedom, claiming, just like Karl Marx, that economic freedom hurts the workers.

Giovanni Gentile denounced socialism and Marxism in The Doctrine of Fascism. He argued that socialism leads to class war and the destruction of national unity and rejected the Marxist claim that history is largely about class struggle.

In Germany, the Nazi party was also known as the "Worker Party".

I don't think there is a single person who would make the claim that their political ideology wouldn't help the workers. So I guess that means we're all Nazis and communists.

Both Giovanni Gentile and Karl Marx drew their ideas heavily from Hegel.

Yes, and for different reasons. Marx was influenced by Hegel's beliefs that history should be viewed dialectically and some of his radical views. Gentile was influenced by Hegel's beliefs about the role of the state.

Friedrich Nietzsche was also influenced by Hegel and he was hardly a Nazi (due to his opposition to nationalism and antisemitism) and hardly a Marxist (due to his opposition to socialism).

What do you mean I am a right-winger?

I didn't say that you are a right-winger. I said that the way you were putting across your ideas when you said this made you look like a caricature of a right-winger:

Go try to sell your socialist propaganda to the people of Ukraine, you ignorant bigot! Or if, most likely, you are a liar and you know socialism doesn't work, then think of the consequences of your words and go fuck yourself!

However, even though I didn't say it then, I will say it now. You are a right-winger.

A right-winger won't state the obvious fact that Republicans are profoundly anti-capitalist,

That isn't a fact so much as a redefining of the word "capitalist".

And yes, some right-wingers would state that the Republican Party is anti-capitalist. I refer to those who are even more right-wing than the Republican Party on economic issues (such as yourself).

and would probably praise Hillary for her anti-homosexual and pro-war comments.

The right has become increasingly tolerant of homosexuals in recent years, or at least has performed lip service to gay rights.

A large amount of the right has condemned Hillary Clinton for her pro-war comments due to an isolationist nationalist stance that the United States needs to get out of world affairs (i.e. "America First").

@Cheers!

[teo123]

Why didn't you think my point about Saudi Arabia was important?

Well, I don't know much about what's going on in the Middle East, and I don't see why that's important.
What I do know is that my history textbook tells me that the mess there started when the UN declared in 1948 that the solution to the Hitler's crimes was to declare a Jewish state... on the territory of Palestine, because the tradition says that there was a big Jewish temple somewhere in or near Jerusalem 1900 years before that (which, of course, won't be rebuilt). And that, in the 1970s, they had a relatively functioning democratic society, and that then the United States started its war on terror, which caused even more mess. And that Hezbollah are the good guys who fought on the Croatian side during the Battle of Sarajevo in 1995. But my guess is that the textbooks in English-speaking countries somehow make Americans and the UN look like the good guys.

I don't see how it's wrong within countries, and even if it were, how that would make it wrong between countries.

Do you agree that "Economically freer countries got rich on the back of the poor countries." implies "Rich people got rich by making poor people poorer."? If so, do you agree that "Rich people got rich by making poor people poorer." implies "Countries with a lot of very poor people tend to also have a lot of very rich people." (which is clearly false)? If not, why?

Who do you think builds the factories?

Well, it takes a lot of people to build a factory. The masons, obviously, play the biggest role. Before that, you need engineers, and then you need electricians, the plumbers, and so on. And they get money for that (more money than it takes to buy the materials) from the entrepreneurs. And the entrepreneurs will later get that money back, plus a bit more, from the workers who will work in that factory.

It's much lower in nationwide elections.

Well, yes, but the principle still applies.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that fascism and Nazism both have a deep hatred of communism at the core of their philosophies.

And, unfortunately, of capitalism, which caused them to fail spectacularly.

Their idea of socialism was based on the Prussian socialism of Oswald Spengler who developed an ideology centred mainly around nationalism.

What do you mean by "nationalism"? North Korea would be a much better example of "national socialism" than the Hitler's regime was, don't you think? I mean, in modern terms, Hitler would be a globalist, rather than a nationalist. North Korea is not engaging in wars, Hitler was. So, if you define nationalism as "Caring only about the interest of one's own country.", Hitler clearly wasn't nationalist.
If by "nationalism" you mean "Hatred towards people of other nations.", which is what I think Hitler meant with "national", such things existed everywhere at that time, just to perhaps a smaller degree. It existed in the US, as in the discrimination against Native Americans (and, to a smaller degree, against the blacks), it existed in the Soviet Union, as in the hatred towards Ukrainians (which is why it is speculated that Holodomor was intentional) and towards Lithuanians and Kashubians (it was forbidden to speak Lithuanian or Kashubian publicly).
Now, Karl Marx obviously wasn't a nationalist in that sense. I don't know about Giovanni Gentile, did he explicitly advocate discrimination against people of other nations?
If by "nationalism" you mean "nationalizing (=confiscating) everything", then absolutely, Hitler was a nationalist, and so was Stalin, so was Giovanni Gentile (his famous quote "Nothing human exists, much less has value, outside of the state."), and Marx also considered that to be a temporary solution.

He argued that socialism leads to class war

In what context? His most famous quote says that there is a need to confiscate everything, which is almost a definition of socialism.

I don't think there is a single person who would make the claim that their political ideology wouldn't help the workers.

Perhaps, but only communism and fascism are centered around the claim that abolishing capitalism will empower the workers.

Friedrich Nietzsche was also influenced by Hegel and he was hardly a Nazi (due to his opposition to nationalism and antisemitism) and hardly a Marxist (due to his opposition to socialism).

Well, he's known to have been quite explicit about it, he said in The Will to Power that communism will kill countless people in the 20th century (Jordan Peterson commented that claim was almost prophetic). Did Gentile say anything like that?

I refer to those who are even more right-wing than the Republican Party on economic issues (such as yourself).

Right-wing economics usually means putting embargos on countries you disagree with politically (as if that's going to change their policies), and putting large tariffs on the goods from other countries. At least that's what centre-right does. Far-right is fascism, that advocates, just like the far-left, complete government control over the economy.

The right has become increasingly tolerant of homosexuals in recent years, or at least has performed lip service to gay rights.

As far as I know, only Dennis Prager has done that.

A large amount of the right has condemned Hillary Clinton for her pro-war comments due to an isolationist nationalist stance that the United States needs to get out of world affairs (i.e. "America First").

Well, that's a good thing, however, pacifism usually comes from the centre or the centre-left.

Anyway, how would you respond to somebody making this argument: "Well, what they had in Germany, Italy and Spain wasn't true fascism. Fascism has nothing to do with racism, Giovanni Gentile said nothing about how we should be killing Jews. You should try our version of fascism, there is no reason to think it will fail."?
Or to the people insisting that slaughtering animals for food can be done humanely, if only it's done this or that way, and that therefore we should continue doing that?