china

Fascism is essentially the same atrocity as communism and socialism, the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property, fascism holds that some property may be “private”, so long as the government can dictate how such property may be used. Sure, you own the factory, but here’s what you may and may not produce in it; here’s the minimum wage you must pay employees; here’s the kind of accounting system you must use; here are the specifications your machinery must meet; and so on.

The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs).

The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism. All of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights.

The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights; whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you.

Source: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

Edited 6/24/2019 18:55:05

the only difference being that whereas communism and socialism openly call for state ownership of all property

Socialism and communism don't advocate for state ownership of all property. They advocate for common ownership of the means of production. Common ownership doesn't have to be state ownership, cooperatives are for example another form of common ownership. They certainly do not advocate the state should own all property, even in the USSR private property existed.

The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs).

Okay so you basically make a personal definition of far left as anything you personally don't like, that doesn't really leave anyone more clever on anything or provide an argument for anything
If anything is a rule of gangs it's capitalism. A tiny, rich elite wields power over the economy, if the government or people do anything they don't like, they can move out or try to sabotage the economy. They can funnel immense amounts of money into campaigns and lobbyism to exert far more influence than an ordinary worker. Not only do they dictate politics in many countries, but in workplaces too capitalists can rule like gangs to reap most of the value created by the workers for themselves.

The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism. All of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights.

A government that protects the "rights" of a rich elite to siphon wealth off the working masses but doesn't care for the homeless, people born into poverty, people being unfortunate to catch diseases or workers spending 60 days a week and making 1/1000 of a landlord or capitalist. That's not a notion of rights that even makes any sense.
I pay 40% in taxes but I have more than enough to eat, wear and stuff, as a finished master student I was used to an income less than 1/4 of what I make now, would I feel my rights are violated if I paid 50% to make sure there were cheap public housing being built for the working class? 55% so future students could have a decent stipend? 60% to make sure nobody had to be homeless? No, I would say our rights would be improved and be happy nobody should fear such a fate. Would I be less incentivized to work? No, fortunately I find passion in it (I can understand those who don't) but I see it as everyone's duty to contribute according to their ability. However I would definitely feel everyone's rights would have been violated if taxes were cut and I had to buy my own health insurance... Knowing all the poor people who then may not afford it and knowing it would probably be even more expensive and less efficient (compare USA's health costs to other western countries... no thanks!)

Government ownership of markets tends to raise costs because a government is a monopolizer; monopolizers are free to raise prices and lower the quality of their services without consequence. The US healthcare system and the US university system suffer from socialism, not free market capitalism. Subsidizing a company and then forcing people to buy their products leads to skyrocketing prices.

you dont know alot about that it seems

Edited 6/25/2019 12:37:08

I just instinctively read your post in a gay, lispy voice. If you would respond with a post confirming that you are a normal person I will carry on with due respect.

Government ownership of markets tends to raise costs because a government is a monopolizer; monopolizers are free to raise prices and lower the quality of their services without consequence. The US healthcare system and the US university system suffer from socialism, not free market capitalism. Subsidizing a company and then forcing people to buy their products leads to skyrocketing prices.

In fact it's often the exact opposite. Capitalism by itself often generates monopoly situations where a large fraction of what you pay for goes to subsidize a rich elite's sports car collection. By having the government take over you can often lower the costs in these cases.
When I first moved I moved to state-built housing for students. There are laws for the rent in public housing that they have to follow the costs of maintaining/renovating the buildings, and no profit can be made. This means the rent was less than 400 USD per month for a room. If I had to look for these kinds of apartments on the market in Copenhagen they would be at least twice as expensive, and the same goes for regular rent apartments. The public, non-profit apartments are far cheaper than private for-profit rent apartments. Capitalism simply does not work to lower the costs as you claim. The same goes for healthcare.

I just instinctively read your post in a gay, lispy voice

What even is a gay voice that doesn't even make any sense. Gay people all have different voices just like any other group of people

Socialism involves government monopoly by definition, free market capitalism may or may not involve monopolies. Corporate monopolies in democratic, capitalist countries are usually the result of government lobbying and government regulation reducing competition for the corporations that lobby successfully. In the case of natural monopolies, such as telecommunication services, government regulation is the only defense against private monopoly, but the problem is that a government monopoly isn't preferable to a private monopoly per se.

Social media is an example of a private monopoly that needs to be regulated by the government. The solution wouldn't be to turn social media into a government monopoly but to legally bind the corporations that control the platforms to a set of rules of fair play.

I'm always amazed how little people know or understand about Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.

I'm amazed that there are at least six people here who actually care

"I'm always amazed"

Commies always are aren't they

Dear too many fascists on this site. It is becoming dominated by white supremaciost ideas. Ban these hateful lowlifes. the whole world fought a war to defat this nonsense, and the defeated countries agreed to never be like that again. The issue is decided. Out Nazi Scum

I just instinctively read your post in a gay, lispy voice.

c'mon Jim I thought you were at least better than Crowder. if you're gonna be a braindead reactionary at least try to be one rung above high pitched boomer goblins like him

I'm always amazed how little people know or understand about Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.
I'm always amazed how many people support Socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.

*Ox brandishes a sword with "reactionary" written on it*

Stand Thee down Knave, and drop Thy Stolen weapon. For it wields power beyond thy knowing.

Neo-reactionaries

Edited 7/10/2019 21:54:55

There are left and right reactionaries. Traditionalists and accelerationists shaking hands over "woke centrist" "SJWs" and "boomers"

UwU

Ex secret service boss of Germany telling the government is loosing the support of police and military. THAT is rising fascism, not that nonesense in the USA.

When you try to replace an entire race of people with criminal immigrants from the 3rd world who come for the public assistance and the rape, you tend to get extreme reactions. A military coup would do much of Pozzed Europe a power of good.