i've given more depth about my views in replies to commenters. one thing that is needed though, doesn't fit in the other. so i went with it, while thinking that the majority of people would understand that the needed part, wouldn't work without help. i appreciate your comment!
Thank you for your kind remarks to me. As to your question, you did the right thing. If you want unvanrnished from people - and grant that most people on this site tend to only give, at most, one sentence answers - best not to prejudice the question. My only stipulation being that it might have been better to define the terms. Thus for example why I went on at some length about the difference between the welfare state and socialism. They are not the same things and in fact, as noted, Marx was a ferocious enemy of - and conservatives laid the foundation for - the welfare state.Part of this is that the terms, in a specifically popular American context are not used as they have been used historically. It drives me nuts when I hear commentators argue that the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - the latter however he refers to himself - are arguing for socialism. They are not. Both are actually populists in the radical liberal tradition. "Radical" here not meaning in its contemporary usage - i. e. extremist. Rather as the ancient Greeks used the term. Meaning "to the root of."Anyhow, I will spare you the torture of having a long digression into the taxonomy of political philosophy and the pedigree of contemporary political ideas. Suffice to say I thought, on balance, that your question was perfectly fair and objective - avoiding the "when did you stop beating your wife" problem.My only minor quibble: Maybe a clarification of terms would have helped. That said, not a matter of great moment.
whaha it's been a long time since I've experienced the level of intellect that you bring🙄 I'm a bit jealous actually 🤨 but I'll improve😎 apologies for not expanding further on the all that's been said.. i took the time to understand though!😅
Not at all. A real pleasure and thanks again for your very kind remarks to me.
capatalism needs right and the left partys in a politcal spectrum indeed
👍👍👍 Completely agree
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
so the government isn't in complete control in socialism? aren't they getting richer? literally controlling what everyone gets? capatalism has pulled most in poverty out of it, and gives every participant the chance the earn much wealth. the free market is the reason of your phone, electronics, transportation, infrastructure, internet, medicine. there's no will to invent when one can't sell it. there's no socialism in nature, only exists because of perceived unfairness, while being controlled by your government is the peak of unfair treatment
surreal: Over the past 30 years, the relative wealth of the lower 50% of Americans has stood still, or gone down. During that same period of time, the wealth of the top 10% had gone up 300%. The wealth inequities are staggering. And it's getting ever more difficult for people to work their way up the economic ladder.
you aren't making an argument that's a rebuttal to mine. even when you where able to prove those numbers you're stating. the argument doesn't show me why i should defend the idea of being socialistic. I'm not saying that capatalism is issue prove, therefore it has political parties. i can't see why someone would rather redistribute wealth, instead of being able to choose a route that varies from low incomes. there lays your power. the government isn't a better replacement, history has and the present proves this, time after time
surreal; Republicans are touting that our economy is good. It's been on the upswing for the past twelve or so years. We are actually a socialist country now. That's proof that a socialist country can work. Just like the Scandinavian socialist countries and Germany work.
what source is informing you? i would say that you have some misconceptions, none of those countries are or state is socialist
look at Venezuela if you want to look at socialism
i think you messed that up.. Hitler's biggest enemy was capatalism, him being a drive towards socialism. infact all socialistic governments, fear capatalism and want to destroy the free market
Not sure where Hitler entered the argument. But since you mentioned it why don't you research german industries under the third reich. Enemies? Not quite!
uhm i dont know what you're trying to say. but that hitler strived towards imprenting socialism in his society isn't debatable. we can talk about why he would favour that
I would recommend some good books on the topic but I doubt you would bother reading them
you could've just named the books instead of saying something that, it brings neither of us any further. i believed for the biggest part of my life that Nazis where from the right side of the political spectrum. that's because i was indoctrinated through school. all that stopped when i saw how leftist are behaving. they've made them believe to be righteous in their hate, by indoctrinating them into believing that they're fighting nazism, making them blind to the fact that they're are acting like the nazis. antifa, anti fascist, is the most fascistic group of activists atm. acting like brown shirts while calling everyone Nazis. i see it in them, the possibility to see others as less than human.animals know what's dangerous even though that particular danger is never presented to them personally. that's what i feel to be expierencing. according to the definition, fascism can't be without nationalism (that causes immunity to the left) nobody can tell me what fascism's word is if it was without nationalism, the truth is: it would be called socialism
@surrealZuenveld is right, you are wrong. Who wrote this? "I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow."? The year was 1930, and the writer was a rising German politician named Adolf Hitler.Business - which tended toward the classical liberal viewpoint where it was not dominated by the aristocracy - gave some backing to Hitler because it was seeking to exacerbate the split between the communists and the Nazis. Also, because they believed - mistakenly as history was to prove - that Hitler could be more easily controlled.It was not for any enthusiasm for National Socialism but was a tactical expedient. It should also be noted that the viciousness of the divide between the Communists and the National Socialists was born of the fact not that they were ideological opposites than that it was - in effect - a fight within the family. The socialists argued that class was the fundamental driving force in History. The Nazis argued that it was race. Both then were fishing for the same groups of supporters and were having an existential debate over what each regarded as the nature of truth. It was this that made their dispute so bloodthirsty.Moreover, also note that all three - the classical liberals, the Nazis and the socialists/communists - were coming more or less out of the same Enlightenment tradition. The later two being a romantic reaction to the former's rationalist origins.Space does not permit a full explication of how this came about. However, suffice to say, surrealZuenveld knows what he is talking about. Your tone is unnecessarily snide and he seems to have been better read than yourself.
whah what are you doing😋 more nice words and I'll start feeling like a sycophant. really, thanks though!
You earned it. At the risk of swelling your ego, I am singularly impressed by the person who knows their history and has done their homework. Anonymous operated on myths and stereotypes - and then compounded the sin with a snarky tone. Her snark being in inverse proportion to the justification for it. There then being some irony in her accusation that you do not read books. Clearly, to borrow a line, "The world is not made for people who are burdened with the curse of self-awareness."Trust me, you earned the accolades. Grant that you can earned them from worthier sources than little ole' me.
:) i think i might be shadow banned though😅 if someone reacts to my posts after this one, then it's always only 1 person and not someone that just disagrees, but is doing so in a hateful manner as well
check my Mytake about Feminism and how the only one who said something responded😅 or my question about rap, even a none controversial poll, that questions if people can become friends with a ex lover. gets no traffic at all
the latest poll is being voted on now:)
Well, getting traffic is partly about what you are asking about, partly about reaching out. I am NOT the guy to be asking about things technological but if you "Follow" and are "Followed" by people, then you can "invite" them to reply to your questions. They get more answers, become featured more prominently on the site, and then you get more replies.To be sure, the topic makes a difference and people are more apt to respond to things where the disagree with you than ones where they agree. However, on this site, with literally thousands of questions every day, the odds of getting noticed are not high.As to your piece on feminism, I will try to locate it. However, be advised that I only found you by accident. Technology - as my girlfriend will attest - is NOT my strong suit. On the flip side, if you think of it, post the link here and I will be sure to check it.Lastly, I cannot promise a response to everything. I am the father of three little ones and this is a hobby that I discovered by accident. So, suffice to say, I don't have a ton of free time. Still, if you want to point out the questions you posted that you most care about, I'll be happy to give them a look.
girlsaskguys. com/social-relationships/a59939-the-success-of-feminism? utm_source=dynamic&utm_medium=androidapp&utm_campaign=question&utm_content=q59939
For some reason that did not work. However, I will try to track it down on your profile. However, I hear little people stirring in the house, so it may be later today if that is all right.
no problem mate:)
by the way I'm not allowed to give the complete link. http://www. is missing