Why the Right and Left hate each other

No, I did not. I asserted the Democrats are marxists (little m), though should have said marxist-like because they support or condone many of the precepts put forth by marxism and Marxism. I always qualify that by saying that very few are card carrying marxists, don't follow every precept of Marxism, and some may not even know how to spell it. This gets back to my walk like a duck analogy.

There are many people who got rich from corporatism and capitalism who support Democrats, and they are normally in camp that says they will not get hurt either because the kill capitalism effort will fail, or, if successful they, maybe or maybe not falsely, believe they will be included in the protected elite and personally taken care of by any marxist regime. People like Gates and Buffett are more Democrat supporters by coincidence, though there are active rich capitalist supporters out there. Soros is in a class all by himself as a very active and focused supporter to the hilt of not just Democrats but also left and far left proponents.

Many top Democrats openly espouse killing capitalism though they commonly choose better words; most are smarter and keep it quiet and do it more slowly and carefully under the covers. A number of Democrat pols smelled an opening with COVID, took quick advantage and worked hard at killing capitalism and private enterprise, trying to sneak around the end.

 

Okay then "creeping Marxism" how's that? It's been creeping for decades!

 

Ah... The old "I can't rebut your arguments, but I know a guy who could" argument...

 

So you didn't "claim" it. You just asserted it. Not sure what the difference is, but "marxists" (little m) is nothing more than a spelling error.

Here is what you said

You said they were fostering Marxism. But you refused to define what "Marxism" is. I did it for you and explained that what might be one of the most relevant (if not THE most relevant) defining characteristics of "Marxism" is their struggle to overturn capitalism. So this is the point where you need to show that "the left" and "Democrats" have fostered doing away with capitalism.

This is where we still stand.

 

OK .. but how obviously we can look to "collectivist" mentality but so what .. this is meaningless outside of a specific example .. and while average soul has heard of "Marxism" - what that means to this person in terms of describing Dems is different for every person you encounter....

In general I disagree that Blue's authoritarian nature of late is well described by an appeal to Marxism - but recognize of course there are some parallels .. Probem is to the average person stating "Blue is Marxist" is meaningless ..sans some made up bedtime horror story told as a child .. and to the not so average .. meaningless outside of specific example - more context.

That was kind of Funny .. .. but if not Marxism .. what is a good descriptor Blue Perspective /Policy? How do we describe the Train (wreck) they are riding on. ?

 

You want a label? I understand that it's easier to just throw in a "label" than it is to actually debate what one disagrees with and defend that position. But that seems to me like intellectual laziness.

Whatever label you want to ascribe to creating equal opportunity for the poor; defending the right to healthcare and the other human rights, defending civil rights, defending democracy (which used to be part of the ideology of both parties)... you can us that label. Of course, this no longer applies to all the high ranking members of the party anymore. But it is the stated ideology of the Democratic Party.

 

I don't want a label .. that was the point in the beaming headlights .. labels are meaningless sans example or context .. speaking of "intellectual laziness" how lazy is you taking my point and presenting it as if I was opposed to this position.

You then double down on your strawman fallacy.

YOu that is speaking in labels .. troping out platitudes that are opposite of description of the item in question such as " \defending civil rights"

Orwellian doublespeak is what you present as a description of Blue.

 

I don't have the time to copy and paste all the research that went into that book.....just like you don't have the capacity to read such a book.

 

It is a misuse of language to maintain that any collective national effort is "socialist" or Marxist. As society develops, it is natural that its capacities and orientations adjust and accommodate greater capacities for "general welfare".

 

And to be right of the Left.
And these are Liberals. The right says Liberals are left and in the eyes of the Communists, Liberals are almost Nazis.

 

The reason they "hate each other" is because neither sits down and discusses what they agree on.
That would take away the ego's need to be "right".

 

No .. Liberals are not all Nazi's ... just someone them .. and not "Almost" this whole vax thing has really brouht the Nazi out of Blue Leadership. Mind bending authoritarian control .. - demonizing a group as "Unclean" via a massive state sponsored campaign - forced medical treatment - taking away job-livilihood akin to Kristallnaucht - restricting mobility - and complete with a Yellow Star aka "vax passport"

What did you need to figure out that Blue has gone rogue -- Gestapo showing up at your door ?

 

I'd like anti-vaxxers not playing the "persecuted Jew card".
That might possibly increase their seriousness.

 

Yeah .. if only those protesting against the Nazi tactics of the Biden Fauci clownshow would just stop complaining - the world wold be such a better place aye mate

Perhap if the Blue sheep would would stop apoligizing for atrocity of the Biden-Fauci clownshow- that might possibly increase their seriousness.

 

All well and good and true, but a collective national effort per se does not define or determine socialism.

 

An analogy might help. Say coach A on the east coast develops a basically new offense approach. A couple of years later coach B, who has no knowledge of coach A's plan develops a similar looking offensive plan. While looking different in some aspects around the edges, coach B is using coach A's plan and coach B is utilizing many core aspects of coach A. It would be proper to state that coach B is using coach A's plan even if the coaches have never met and coach B's plan has some differences here and there.

It's like I said earlier, marxism, like athletes, come each in many different flavors. While the basketball player has many somewhat different attributes from the golfer, both the basketball player and the golfer share similar core attributes. Same with marxists.

 

Indeed it doesn't.
Socialism is the relationship between individual and state.
Scandinavian nations are said to be "more socialist" because they pay more tax and expect the state to provide what they want.
They decided to arrange their economies like that by free and fair elections
So for their money they get a comprehensive state health system, good clean roads, great education, model social services etc etc.
However like almost every economy, it is MIXED.
There are private companies, Norway and Sweden have a partial relationship with the EU and rely on their own output n their own terms.
They have decided that if everyone chips in something, then everyone gets more than the sum total, especially when progress is now so expensive. (technology is not cheap).
Of course state finance does not rely on tax...it comes more importantly from government borrowing, but the tax revenue helps to pay that back.

I have a hard time with the idea that ALL socialism is some trick of the devil. As soon as a government taxes and spends, it is technically a socialist economy. But most countries mix private enterprise with a role for the state to supply what is too big or too integrated to be paid for individually. Instead the state hires private companies via competitive tender to do the work, ostensibly paid for by tax payers via state distribution.
Now what on earth is wrong with that?

 

I appreciate the logic, but the definition still gets in the way. Socialism is defined by the public (government) ownership of production and distribution, period. Socialism is not defined by collectivism or the public (government) doing common things for people, and is not defined by some relationship between government and the people.. Calling Scandinavian countries socialistic is a misnomer but plays well for the socialism activists. They are predominately capitalistic with a high level of social services. Incidentally, the increased social services of the latter half of the 20th century has caused their economy and society to drop somewhat from the complete capitalism and very limited social services of the 19th century.

 

Re Scandinavia, my point was that even it is a mixed economy.

Your definition of socialism is in fact communism.
Americans do tend to confuse the two.
Socialism is indeed collective and common effort for the benefit of all. and of course it is about the relationship between people and government. Politicians are elected on promises of more or less taxation and where spending will be prioritised.
Example. The current Tory party promised in 2019 to spend over 175 billion on HS2, a high speed rail line that connects London with Birmingham and Leeds.
It was a large package (on top of XXX new hospitals and more police and blah blah)
Electors could go for it or not. But it was state spending partially created by taxpayers' money. For years and years and years in order to pay it off of course.

 

To repeat: Socialism is defined by the public (government) ownership of production and distribution, period. That is the common classic accepted economic syntax, but you are free to have your own definition. You are far from alone in that regard.

Communism is always socialist, but socialism is not always communist though is predominately totalitarian. There can be (and is) voting in communism, socialism, and capitalism though many could not be accurately characterized as democratic.

 

Again.
That is the description of communism.
Socialism is the WORKERS' or COMMUNITY4S ownership of production.


Socialism is a system in which every person in the community has an equal share of the various elements of production, distribution, and exchange of resources. Such a form of ownership is granted through a democratic system of governance. Socialism has also been demonstrated through a cooperative system in which each member of the society owns a share of communal resources.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/socialism/

Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production.[5][6][7][8] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[9] Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity.[1
and regulation of the means of production by government or society aimed at community benefit.[

No mention of the state. OWNERSHIP.
Regulation perhaps, but not ownership.

I did a quick check as to what Miriam Webster, the American dictionary said.

Essential Meaning of socialism

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies
Full Definition of socialism


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

This is incorrect and is a definition of COMMUNISM.
Of COURSE there is private ownership in a socialist system.
No wonder Americans are confused.

 

Second quote here (underlined) is from Wiki. Forgot to attribute it.

 

Great! But you DID ask (quoting you) "what is a good descriptor Blue Perspective /Policy? "

You asked for a label, I responded. Happy to see you changed your mind

 

Ouch .. I fear this confuses the issue even more. .. the question is how to characterize Blue Totalitarianism - with something other than using labels like "Marxism" - which has been rendered meaningless in common political usage.

So the question here is not to define what Marxism is like .. but to describe Blue Totalitarianism .. without using the word "Marxism"

I like the term - "Fallacious Utilitarianism" -- which describes Blue Perfectly - and Red to some degree as well but that is another story.. we are talking how Blue weilds power .. tramples on essential liberty - the Rule of Law - Founding principles - Constitution - and various other atrocities associated with this Authoritarian clown show.

 

Looks like you might be having some problems understanding how forums work. YOU make the arguments. You don't just copy-paste somebody else's arguments. The reason is that that person is not here to defend what they say. But, if you agree with them, then they become your arguments so you should be able to explain them and you need to defend your position. If your position is based on data, then copy the link to that data. But the argument itself is yours. There is a reason why this is part of forum rules. And if you don't have "time" to comply with them, then you are not obligated to post at all.