posted August 20, 2019 01:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
No, they are being authoritative. They don't know what kind of government they want. They just hate free speech when they don't agree with it, and, of course, they despise president Trump.

---

like i said when you push a view point it doesnt serve you well to allow other ideas through, so from the standpoint of actively trying to gain power it makes sense to crush free speech

what comes after power is achieved is the ideal

that being said anarcho-communism can't work on any fundamental level ultimately so even if they got what they wanted it would fall apart

edit: it depends way too much on the idea that people are inherently moral in a manner where they'll feed into a system all on their own and offer mutual support to each other

which like i said can work for a commune but outside of that you need some level of structure to keep people motivated

the other end of the spectrum anarcho-capitalism makes more sense than anarcho-communism because it at least recognizes the potential for greed to be a means to achieve order

posted August 20, 2019 08:32 AM            

Stop trying to weasel out of your statement that Socialism is about economics...not government control.

posted August 20, 2019 09:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"you do realize the government regardless of system has control over certain things? you could literally pick any system of government and what the government controls will be a part of it"

Stop trying to weasel out of your statement that Socialism is about economics...not government control.

The very bedrock principle of Socialism is [b]GOVERNMENT CONTROL over the means of production and distribution of goods.[/B]

---

i'm not weaseling out of anything you're nit picking and purposefully taking things out of context to prove a point that's irrelevant

all governments control particular aspects of the countries they rule over, no one thinks otherwise that's a given

if there is a government there is government control, but in the context of authoritarian over libertarian governments we're discussing a very specific form of control that's unrelated to the economy

socialism is related to the economy which is different than say whether or not there's a dictator or a one party system etc (which i know you know is exactly what i was referring to by "government control" because i've specified repeatedly, you choosing to ignore my words is on you) over democracy, multiple parties etc

the balance of power is what creates an authoritarian society, the economy is separate from that

so when i say "government control" i'm specifically referring to the control exerted over the people and how much power an individual has, the chain of command, rather than discussing the economy

that should be a logical given, but since it isn't for you there you go

again not weaseling out of anything you're just nit picking and ignoring context

fascism is a specific brand of authoritarian government it's not just any form of government that's interchangeable with another

yes you can find comparisons and common points with other systems that's a given too, but to call things that aren't fascism "fascist" is misleading and doesn't acknowledge what fascism actually is

similarities dont equate with things being exactly the same and socialist economic policies are not exactly the same as fascist ones, neither are the social ideals etc and so on

socialism is specifically defined by its economic policies not the balance of power (which again was what i was referring to) which is why it can be considered both authoritarian or libertarian

even what you quoted acknowledges that it's specifically tied to economy by definition so i'm sure you're aware of that

calling any and every law or policy "fascism" or "authoritarian" is a misnomer because the only way to not have that is to completely dissolve the government and all systems and fascism is a specific form of government

so again yes governments control specific things due to their nature of governing, but in the context of what i was speaking about it should be inferred that i'm specifically discussing policies outside of economics

posted August 20, 2019 10:35 AM            

I'm nitpicking nothing.
Nor was your statement inaccurately copied. It's your own statement and it's in perfect context.

posted August 20, 2019 10:35 AM            

I'm nitpicking nothing.
Nor was your statement inaccurately copied. It's your own statement and it's in perfect context.

You said Socialism is about economics...not government. False!

posted August 20, 2019 01:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"i'm not weaseling out of anything [b]you're nit picking and purposefully taking things out of context to prove a point that's irrelevant

I'm nitpicking nothing.
Nor was your statement inaccurately copied. It's your own statement and it's in perfect context.

You said Socialism is about economics...not government. False![/B]

---

i was very clear multiple times and i've repeated myself and elaborated now, so you are nit picking and you are disregarding what i was saying and what i've just said to harp on a meaningless point

you do you man, but i've been more than clear so if you still don't understand what i was talking about then i'm sorry there's no explaining it to you

again you did ignore the context because everything i've said was about authoritarian government vs libertarian government

economic policy is not a factor in what qualifies a government as either

in general economics refers to left or right whereas power structure refers to whether or not a government is authoritarian or libertarian

socialism (being an economic policy, yes it's a government one) can be on either end of the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum

this is simple stuff what are you missing?

you're harping on nothing at this point desperate to be right, but if you just look at what i said (and yes taking a single sentence out of a larger statement can be misleading and can ignore context, direct quotations don't make that different) and pay attention to it you'll see what i meant by "government control" very clearly

and if you can't then it should be clarified fully by now

continuing with this is needless and endless nitpicking won't make you right, it just makes it seem like you're willfully ignoring information presented to you in order to tell yourself you're "right"

nice projection, i never claimed to be dispassionate, what i said is i'm not a socialist and i don't believe the current system in place should stay the way it is

i'm very passionate about my personal beliefs, and i'm not attempting to project any specific image here, i'm not sure where you get that from or why you want to paint me out to be someone i'm not and never claimed to be

it's like you have no real response so you resort to things like nitpicking and projection etc and so on

posted August 20, 2019 04:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
You don't want it pointed out that you're wrong...in a major way, about Socialism, then do your homework and get it right the 1st time.

Socialism is [b]GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.[/B]

---

i wasn't wrong, you're taking what was said out of context and i've reiterated and elaborated repeatedly

again i was referring to "government control" in the sense of authoritarian or libertarian not left or right economical laws

fixating on something that wasn't meant or implied and taking it out of context and continuing to do so doesn't change what i've been saying

i've more than clarified and you're only unnecessarily repeating yourself while failing to acknowledge said clarifications

socialism is a matter of economy it is not a matter of whether or not a government is authoritarian or libertarian and it definitely isn't the equivalent of fascism which is a separate form of government

this is what i've been saying which is completely correct and logically sound, when you nit pick, take things out of context and refuse to pay attention to further clarification to just repeat yourself then there's no reason to speak

i'm not saying anything different now than i did last night, i was right then and i'm still right you're just harping on semantics because you disliked my initial choice of words

however now that i've clarified there should be no issue, so why are you continuing to complain about what i said last night instead of discussing what i've elaborated on and clarified?

seems to me like you don't really have anything to say and just want to nit pick and make noise (which is also why you projected a bunch of **** onto me as a person that wasn't at all true)

if you're just going to repeat yourself again i'll save you the trouble and scroll up so you don't have to keep typing the same thing repeatedly

posted August 20, 2019 06:15 PM            

You are clearly, unalterably wrong.
I merely posted your own words about Socialism but Socialism is "GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION".

posted August 20, 2019 06:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"I wasn't wrong, you're taking what was said out of context and i've reiterated and elaborated repeatedly"

You are clearly, unalterably wrong.
I merely posted your own words about Socialism but Socialism is [b]"GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION".

Why not just admit you screwed it up...and move on instead of running on endlessly about your justifications?[/B]

---

clarity isn't justification, again you took what i said out of context (and yes the larger statement is the context not just a single sentence) and you're turning it into a repetitive discussion

i wasn't wrong, when i was talking about government control i was referring to something very specific which had nothing to do with the economy

socialism has to do with the economy, yes the government controls the economy that's a given but that works both ways unless you have a completely free market

socialism is not authoritarian or libertarian which was the entire point of the statement i made that you picked that sentence you're harping on out of

it's a dishonest way of picking something i said apart, and it misrepresents the entirety of what i said

that being said you can dislike the way i phrased something, but continuing on arguing semantics after further clarification is absolutely senseless

because i have never once said that the economy isn't controlled by the government

and i clarified and said that when i referred to "government control" i was specifically referring to the balance of power outside of the economy (which is what socialism deals with)

you can read any of what i said in its totality and see that nothing i'm saying now has changed from what i said

even tight control of the economy by the government does not necessarily fall into authoritarian territory that's just factual that's why there's such a thing as democratic socialism

you keep trying to play word games here, but it's not altering any of my statements whatsoever

if you want to take words out of context and twist what i said, that's cool, but you're beating a dead horse and you won't get anywhere because you're ignoring everything i'm actually saying to you and everything that was actually said

you ever see that movie dinner for schmucks? there's a scene where steve carrel says to quote john lennon "you may say that i'm a dreamer but i'm not" you're essentially doing that right now

posted August 20, 2019 07:04 PM            

Verbal diarrhea as you repeatedly attempt to convince others you weren't wrong about Socialism. But, you were...and are wrong about the basic bedrock tenet of Socialism, which is...GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.

posted August 20, 2019 07:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"clarity isn't justification, again you took what i said out of context (and yes the larger statement is the context not just a single sentence) and you're turning it into a repetitive discussion"

Verbal diarrhea as you repeatedly attempt to convince others you weren't wrong about Socialism. But, you were...and are wrong about the basic bedrock tenet of Socialism, which is...[b]GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.

No one should remain ignorant of the underlying tenet of Socialism.[/B]

---

i never said that the government didn't control the economy in socialism, what i said was that socialism can be libertarian or authoritarian and that when i said "government control" i was referring to the balance of power between the government and the people on an authoritarian or libertarian level rather than left or right economics (which is where socialism falls)

again "you may say that i'm a dreamer but i'm not" - john lennon

is all you keep doing, and it's dishonest and misrepresents everything that i've said, and anyone can read the things i've said and see that if they wanted to

like i said all governments have some kind of control and levels of control that's a given, but in a discussion on why socialism isn't fascism in spite of the potential for authoritarian rule (because again democratic socialists do exist so do anarcho communists and so on) and discussing "government control" from the standpoint of anarchy-dictatorship rather than left- right (communism-capitalism which is where socialism would fall spectrum wise) economy perspective is all i was doing from the beginning

you are pretending i don't know what socialism is and that's entirely inaccurate

and you're basing it on me using words in a way you didn't like and ignoring everything that i've said otherwise

say something new and acknowledge what i'm actually saying to you instead of repeatedly going off on me stating things in a way you didn't like and ignoring everything i've elaborated on and me clearly stating that what you're saying isn't true

posted August 20, 2019 11:41 PM            

Wrong again.

You're saying things that aren't true about Socialism and now, you've done it again.

There is no nexus between Libertarianism and Socialism.

posted August 20, 2019 11:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
"and you're basing it on [b]me using words in a way you didn't like and ignoring everything that i've said otherwise"

Wrong again.

You're saying things that aren't true about Socialism and now, you've done it again.

There is no nexus between Libertarianism and Socialism.

"what i said was that socialism can be libertarian or authoritarian [/B]

---

there actually is libertarian socialism, you're free to look it up

it's not authoritarian on social issues and when it comes to power structure it's far left economically though

i'm not saying anything wrong about socialism you just seem unaware of what i'm talking about

there's a de-emphasis on the state with an emphasis on far left economics that's literally what libertarian socialism is and again, you're free to do the research i promise it exists and if you search for it you'll find many results

i never claimed it was brilliant, but its existence is real

so no i'm not "wrong again" (i wasn't wrong in the first place you just didn't like my word choice) you just don't know what libertarian socialism is

edit: btw if you're thinking of "libertarian" in the sense of the political right wing party then no obviously that's not socialism

but the word "libertarian" used in the context i'm using it just means it's not authoritarian which is different than the political party

and it has nothing to do with left or right wing policies (which again i've already expressed many times over) it's a reference to the power the state has over people and social issues outside of economics (been over this too)

like i said anyone can look the term "libertarian socialism" up and find the viewpoint and see that i'm not just making something up, it's a reality

there's a libertarian left and a libertarian right and neither should be necessarily confused with "libertarians" which is a right wing view point specifically but on a spectrum it falls between far right authoritarian views and anarcho capitalism (which counts as libertarian btw, but isn't "libertarian" as in the political party)

like i said it's the spectrum between dictatorships and anarchy that i'm referring to not communism-capitalism

posted August 21, 2019 11:12 AM            

Libertarian socialism is just another name for anarcho-socialism...and notice, in the original name version, there's no mention of Libertarian!

Socialism is coercion and force to enforce their lunatic policies. History is full of these power mad Socialists...and the destruction of the nations where they seized power. No amount of bullshiite is going to cover the lies of:

People/community ownership of production and distribution. There's not going to be a people's vote to decide how many widgets to make, how many of each color to make, how much a widget will cost..or any other detail of the Widget business. Socialist government masters would make all those decisions.

The nonsense notion of all property being held in the name of the people..who each owned an equal share and administered by the Socialist government came to an abrupt end with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Socialism is far, far, far from the precepts of Libertarianism.

Thus, as I said, there's no nexus between Socialism and Libertarianism. Just a made up bullshiite name change to cover the stench coming off the anarchist boneheads.

posted August 21, 2019 02:09 PM            

again i'm not saying i agree with it, however when it comes to social structure and so on those ideals fall into that category there are also countries that are socialist leaning that are still democracies

the word "libertarian" in this context refers to the balance of power and social structure outside of the economy

also not all socialists are against private property just like all people on the right are not fascists

of course there would be things that people would have no choice in and injustices as a result in a society like that, but that's literally every form of government

price of existing in a society is being ruled by one

i'm not lying about what it is or it being a political ideology or about its nature which you don't seem to grasp

i can also say that what happened under say castro or stalin etc is not that, so your examples are of a different form of government that's far left

that being said i'm not a leftist and i have no reason to lie about the different factions on the left and their beliefs because it serves me no purpose

it doesn't matter ir you or i think the policies are crazy or if the history of other forms of socialism resulted in something undesirable

again the voting would be about other things and other forms of freedom do you understand that you can have freedom in one area but not in others? that's true of all societies and government

you're just sharing your opinions and ignoring what's actually being said while referencing authoritarian communism as the grand example for a different ideology

what's clever about that? you're also calling me a liar when i've lied about absolutely nothing and i'm curious why would i lie?

what is it you think i have to lie about?

because economically i'm pretty ******* right wing, i believe that money is a driving force and i think it's the equivalent of people getting a vote

i think the majority of people who have an issue with capitalism really have an issue with government red tape on small businesses and mindless consumerism done by the masses

i think they hang themselves by making poor decisions and then try to blame a fairly solid system

i fully believe in private property, that people should be free to defend with guns and that the government shouldn't intervene when it comes to most things being done on private property

i'm against property taxes i think taxation in most cases is theft etc and so on

those are some of my personal opinions, do they seem very socialist to you? because from where i'm standing that's definitely not the case

again i have no reason to lie, and no matter how much you dislike what words mean and the context theyre used in the political ideology remains the same and it's definition has to do with what i said not the stuff you're talking about

we all lose power by living in a society, there will always be injustice

there are varied beliefs on all sides (left -right, authoritarian-libertarian) that exist on a spectrum not just black and white