you're an illiterate then.

Radical: very new and different from what is traditional or ordinary.

Traditional: A way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time.

That's from Merriam-webster's:-)

Hey look more Authoricucks!

Not the only definition of radical.

''(especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.''

Edited 6/22/2016 04:20:58

Socialism works in small quantities, for example : Denmark. But for Russia it doesn't work, in fact it's a catastrophe.

That I can agree with Leif on.

It seems to be easier for smaller nations to provide benefits like welfare, universal healthcare, state college education...

In the US, since there are so many people, it would be a massive burden on the government.

Also, if this is the far right thread, I'd expect to see some Corporatism here.

I like how nobody has bothered to respond to the far right thread now that a Jew's on it.

Oy Vey!

No. Since Karl's here, I expected him or you to say something to counter me, especially since I'm not on the far-right.

However, I did not mean it in that way.

Socialism works in small quantities, for example : Denmark. But for Russia it doesn't work, in fact it's a catastrophe.

Denmark is a capitalist country, not a socialist one.

Also, even if denmark were somehow socialist it wouldn't matter. If a system is beneficial to 0.0% of the worlds population while to the other 100% it makes them starve to death, then it is a horrible system, not a good one.

I think that pure socialism is impossible. Just like a purely capitalist society.

You need a bit of both in order to make a functioning state.

Also, who the hell thinks an absolute monarchy/despotism is a good idea? We've seen how bad they are.
1. In hereditary governments, you'll eventually end up with someone who's a complete lunatic or incompetent at ruling, and then things start turning to crap.
2. An absolute monarch has unrestrained control over his/her people.
3. It takes away democracy, one of the crown achievements of the Western World.

1.Happens every election cycle in a republic
2.Kek >implying the governments in the west aren't disarming the people so they can kill them with greater ease, something that has never happened en masse with kingdoms.
3.Democracy isn't western its Greek. Also so what? Monarchy is a crowning achievement also and it is a more stable form of governance.

You should all join Canidae!

Hey Karl, what do you think of Corporatism, a government run by interest groups and corporate groups?

It could work well.