Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Wealth vs. Illth, GloboCap, Socialism, Fascism, and Comparison 

By: Beldin in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (3)
Thu, 22 Sep 22 4:49 PM | 50 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 35770 of 60008
(This msg. is a reply to 35769 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

I believe Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism, and whatever other "ism" you want to throw into the mix is nothing more than bullsh!t labels meant to obscure what they all truly boil down to - power of the state over the people. People can waste their time arguing over the structural nuances of each "ism," but their essence is the same - they are all systems whereby a few, who ultimately consider themselves to be the privileged elite, use the powers of the state to forcibly coerce their fellow citizens (whom they consider to be sheeple who are desperately in need of the "elite's superior and benevolent ruling guidance") into to doing what THEY want. And, usually want THEY want is to live in the lap of luxury at the expense of everyone else. All of these "isms" are Nationalist in nature ... as long as the Nationalist interests coincide with the personal interests of the "elite" ... because THEY believe themselves to be the heart and soul of the nation they are ruling. 




Avatar

The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Wealth vs. Illth, GloboCap, Socialism, Fascism, and Comparison
By: Decomposed in 6TH POPE
Thu, 22 Sep 22 12:43 PM 		Msg. 35769 of 60008

fizzy:

Re: “People who CAN'T define words clearly CAN'T THINK clearly, Zim.”It's not that simple. There ARE words that are like "pornography" - hard to define but we know them when we see them. I'd venture that you too would find it hard to come up with a flawless definition of "socialism." I don't think anybody can. There are just too many cases where commonly accepted prominent socialists proved to be hypocritical in their behaviors, thereby blurring the word's definition regardless of what it was. Early 20th century Italy and Russia, for instance, were both socialist, totalitarian dictatorships, but the Communists were officially socialists with an international focus while Mussolini defined fascism as socialism with a NATIONAL bent (kinda like Hitler, eh? Those two's politics really only differed in the Nazi's racist obsession.) When it came to practice, Stalin's Communist International served the NATIONAL interests of the Soviet Union despite whatever international rhetoric the country used, and Italy's supposed NATIONAL socialism was belied by Italy's invasion of other countries. They were hypocrites. Any country you might use as a model of socialism will similarly punch holes that you could drive a tank through in the word's definition.

When I engage in internet discussions, I've noticed how frequently - and annoyingly - opponents make requests of me as part of the price of admission... I guess for the privilege of talking to them. The requests aren't things they're offering to do themselves, mind you, but things they expect ME to do - and they usually come across as more of a demand. Things like: "What's your source?" "Show me that it's a reputable source." "Define XYZZY." "Are you a libertarian?" (They like to label people instead of dealing with them as individuals with thoughts of their own.) In your case, you told Zimbler0 to post his definitions, his facts, his reasons, a list of examples, then said you'd start with an "easy one" which isn't easy at all except for someone who has the answers at hand, perhaps plucked from a recently read book.

When people start doing that to me, I see it as a defense mechanism on their part. Is that what you're doing? I'll remind you that although you might be a boss, but you aren't ZIMBLER's boss. And if that's not what you're doing, then perhaps what I've just posted will be helpful to you. It's how you're coming across and you should know it.

I suggest you just make your point and leave it to whoever you're speaking with to post opposing examples, facts, definitions, etc, if they're of a mind to do so. None of us want to have to read a book in order to a respond to a message.

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next