Because communism is a farce. Ethnic nationalism is redundant. There is either globalism (that someone always benefits off of more than the globalist fools) or actual nationalism (which actually allows people to compete and prosper in a more merit based way while keeping a superior common good.)

Yeah... right. Pull the other one.

I come across to many people, groups, political ideologies, that all claim they are all about small government and individual freedoms.... And they all end up benefiting select groups and the few. You are not going to find anyone honest enough, or self reflective, who will say "I'm for authoritarian, and big government, in everyone's lives." I haven't found anyone who doesn't want to grow government, increased regulations, in some way.

The idea of socialism is very much rooted in growing government, and regulations. It can't work without that. That is just the plain truth, no matter how you try to spin it.

Everything is case by case with me. Yes, I do believe in democracy, and I believe in treating everyone equally as much as possible, but I am realist to the core, and I realize you have to be authoritarian at times - and those who claim they are all about freedom are disingenuous, or in denial.

And I believe in denuding the sharp edges of capitalism by stemming certain freedoms of corporations, placing certain regulations on them to protect consumers and workers, and the environment, and having them pay for much of our infrastructure and investment in new technologies - that won't be pursued by profit driven investors. Of course, all of this is just at the surface of my mind, and is in no way remotely reflective o all that I believe in - or goes into detail.

*sigh

I think you live in a fantasy world, and are in pure denial. It's like you are trying to ignore the forest fire by arguing that there is a tree that isn't burning. I told you before, you ignore human nature, and how it can perverse an ideology. You can make this circular argument that it's all the fault of capitalism, but that is nothing more than a cop out to assuage your ego and deny reality.

As I said before, You have an uptight view on socialism, where it must defy reality to fit your standards and definitions. You only accept the good things about socialism when it happens, while denying the bad things under socialism when they happen. This is what you have argued. This is your silly definition of socialism

This dictates your views on what you will accept, and turn a blind eye to, while I am critical of both capitalism and socialism - you'll notice I haven't defended capitalism.

You haven't proven that you are any different, just full of romanticism, self righteousness, and unrealistic expectations.

Because, you see things as black or white, while I see things as various shades of gray - rality. I have certain standards, and principles, I go by, that I try to apply to decisions - though a lot of it is philosophical with no easy answer to them. And I will go with whatever sounds reasonable, or practical, left or right. It's not much more complicated than that.

I don't think in terms of where I stand in a political ideology. And political ideologies are something that is defined, with certain rules to follow, and are recognized by people to place themselves and others into a category - like you are trying to do with me. I'm am simply in the center, where I can go any which direction, based mostly on case by case, or likes or dislikes, making it harder to determine what, or who, I will support, outside of rejection of extremely divisive, ultra authoritarian, egregious immoral, outright hypocritical, or impractical, people or policies.

I can guarantee that I have studied history a lot more than you have - and from various points of views. But you haven't been able to prove that your wanting to change the US, or other countries, into your uptight definition of socialism isn't politically extreme, or won't turn out to be just like what you hate what we have right now. I'm not here to prove your point for you, that is your job. You can bring up all the minors examples you want in support of socialism/communism, but all I have to do is point out the major failures and watch you make excuses.

Nah, he's talked to me about it before, too, and it basically lead to the same thing - we accused the others of not knowing what the other was talking about, called the other stupid, and left thinking the other doesn't know what they're talking about.

I'd join in, but I'm not about double teaming Edy; it's not nice, he gets enough grief on here, and you seem to be doing well enough on your own.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine - I hate the colloquial concept of "Socialism for the Rich", since it muddies the wayer and makes discussing Socialism that much harder.

Wealthy welfare and tax cuts? That isn't Socialism, as this has nothing to do with workers owning any means of production. What you're referring to is "Crony Capitalism", where the rich buy influence in the government and get them to write laws that benefit them disproportionately.

It could be debated that this is actually a form of selective populism (a facit of Ur-Fascism, according to Umberto Eco), but I don't think I need to go THAT far here. But yeah, that ain't Socialism, so we shouldn't be calling it that, even colloquially.

E N L I G H T E N E D C E N T R I S M

But in all seriousness, I wouldn't go that far in labelling Edy like that. Edy doesn't like labels, but his views mostly fit into a hardened moderate liberal scheme (in the traditional sense - pro-enlightenment, pro-capitalist; similar to a "Liberal Republican" of old), as far as I can tell, for better or worse. Edy's not really a centrist, and I mean that as a compliment; whether I agree with him or not, he tends to be consistent in what he believes.

'Course, @EdyKel can correct me on that if I'm offensively off base. But while I have your eye, Edy, I don't think you answered the thread OP - you came in to respond to someone else - and I'm legit curious what your response would be. Out of the four choices, which extreme would you pick if you were forced to?

Zionism: You're the socially acceptable kind of Nazi. But more insidious.

Don't follow all the crazy shit out there. And don't particular care anymore. I just keep in mind everything you say, and judge on that.

For the US, slow change can be good. But radical, and drastic, change, no, as in a revolution to change something... That just swaps sides and leads to the same shit that you are complaining about now under different groups - if worse. That is what history continuously shows. That is what your argument for socialism is based on. And if you aren't even going to accept SSI, or medicare, programs that are considered socialism by most, then you have a radical view that will only lead to authoritarianism because you will never accept anything short of your controlling ideas over it. And I don't care if you complain you are for freedoms... You simply are not, especially if you try to force them onto people who don't want it.

I have a realist view on things, here and outside, something that you are devoid of in promoting your convoluted, and and seemingly contradictory, ideas of socialism/anarcho-communism. What don't you understand about the majority of the country not supporting that type of system, or how you are going to enact those ideas to force it upon people? You just ignore the politics of it to accuse those of supporting any form of capitalism as being simply wrong. What is not to understand about your anarcho-political views?

No, you simply aren't stating how things stand. You are degrading the majority of people out there, including me, because your are driven by this fanaticism, and self righteousness, over socialism, attacking anything that doesn't share your views as a far right capitalist. How can you not be divisive?

I seem to recall you were praising the start of the soviet union, and we all saw how that turned out later down the road. So, all I can say is,"well see where this will lead to in a few decades", and it may not end up like the socialism you want, good or for bad.

And don't forget China, and NK . But this doesn't change the fact that you are basically downplaying, defending, socialist countries for doing terrible things because you don't like how they reflect on your political ideologies. I have seen this over and over with Christians, and white ethnocentrics, who simply don't want to admit certain terrible things happened by people of their groups, because they fear it may make them look bad, when it's just a part of history, and we shouldn't repeat the same mistakes. Don't defend this shit. It's that simple.

I don't care if you think I am promoting some view that you think is a lie, I'm not the one defending terrible countries and the terrible things they did in defense of socialism or capitalism.

So are American conservatives. We are all a bit liberal, some more than others. And vice versa.

Fascism, since I like Starship Troopers.

Yeah, here's the deal, you can blame my conservative half for that, when you are not saying that I am a liberal

Strawman argument. I have no problem with gradual change, including aspects of socialism, as long as long as they can be fiscally paid for, and realistically enacted, and don't go to far.

It's kinda hard not to miss the point when you make no distinction between "now" and "gradual", or when you shy away from explaining how your ideas would gain acceptance, or enacting those ideas, short of some type of movement/revolution to drastically change things. You are not really helping to move people into your direction when you are vague, or can't explain things properly, or scaring people. It's why Warren and Bernie are getting their asses handed to them when they try to explain how they would try to enact and pay for M4A, when most people aren't buying their explanation, or lack of, for it.

Calm down, sparky. I don't really give a shit what you think I am, or call me, but your penchant for drama bothers me the most about you.

....and you can pretty much call anyone liberal, even those who call themselves conservatives, by your very liberal definition (open) of it (too bad you can't have such a liberal definition of socialism). You can argue about classic liberal roots, but in today's atmosphere, that don't mean a whole lot when people are dividing themselves between left and right, liberals vs conservatives, and vice versa.

You can play this game that I have some political ideology, and on some level that may be true, but it's nothing you can really find on wiki, unless you include just about everyone in the country to try and staple me down into some larger political ideological category, outside of centrist. When I say I am a centrist, it means just that, I don't follow any particular rules of any political group on the left or right, just picking an choosing what I like from either. It's not that complicated. I have nothing to pledge my loyalty to, outside my own standards and conscious when it comes to politics.

You cut out the part where I said it "remains to be seen".

"well see where this will lead to in a few decades", and it may not end up like the socialism you want, good or for bad.

More drama from you...

Really?

looking at the back and forth history between you an I in this topic, it seems you have been fighting tooth and nail to finally to make this admissions.

I do. I don't defend things that happen in this country's history, and I'm always bringing them up when I am dealing with someone who vilifies other groups while defending their Christian/white/male roots.

Oh, I understand, better than you do. I keep pointing out human nature for why pure socialism fails. And you have basically zero evidence it has ever worked on a large scale, like an entire country, with millions of people living in it. What we have seen are countries that have tried to become socialist, only becoming authoritarian, hierarchical (with rampant nepotism), corupt, ultra athoritarian, and just as bad as (if not worse) than what you hate about capitalist countries - with nothing good to say about Scandinavian countries who haven't done the same level of shit as either side.

What makes your ideals not just unrealistic, but also radical and extreme, is ignoring the socialist elements that are already a part of most capitalistic countries in the world, which numbs the need for full blown socialism, with the only way you can hope to change this is to be disingenuous with your own arguments (picking parts of failed experiments in socialism), and, seemingly, hoping for some type of anarchy, or revolution, to change something you know has no chance of happening on it's own without because the world runs on monetary value and supply and demand, guaranteeing that full blown socialism in a sizable country will fail, and lead to the same outcome as other countries that tried to become full blown socialist. It's like you are dreaming of some Star Trek uiverse, but just scaring people instead.

A Liberal, when pushed, tends to choose Fascism over Socialism, according to history, so no surprised there, I s'pose. Here's hoping Neoliberal society doesn't collapse under it's own weight so you don't have to make that choice!

Funny enough, I watched Starship Troopers again a week or so ago; great movie, and an excellent display of many of the features of Fascism that makes it so self destructive.

The list of available choices are extreme for a reason. And if they do happen you are pretty much screwed anyway you look at it.

And another part of the reason I chose it is because I am half conservative.

Yeah, I know; it's literally the point of the exercise. Less interesting for me (a known leftie on here), but more interesting for moderates. I'm not going to call you a Fascist for it, as long as you don't call me a Stalinist for my pick (since, y'know, I'm not); it was just that your pick informally confirmed historic precident, was all, which I found interesting.

Also, keep in mind that I literally don't think you can remain a moderate Neoliberal forever (since Neoliberalism will eventually collapse, according to leftist economic/political theory), so it's less of a joke when I say I hope you don't have to make any sort of decision like that anytime soon.

And half not-Conservative, too; in my eyes it could've gone either way. Alas!

Anarcho-anarchism, total anarchy, but everyone also has leadership because everyone is a Khan in their own right!

(plus you know how my dude got around, if nobility is decided by 'divine' birth, then ancestry.com is the new church!)

basically if you can prove 1% "Khan" (that being a relation to any 'noble') DNA, then you are also a "Khan" and....

by the look of things that's probably pretty easy to find! Presto, the 1%ers are now the 99%ers, ha~hah!

aka "anarcho-royalism (yep, that's a thing) in less steps"

Hmmmm.Well,for economic and social i'd rather pick Fascism and for everything else i'd pick anarchy.Sounds quite sound to me.

The Anarcho-Capitalist or pure anarchism are your safest bets as...

In a fascist society everything restricted saying it is for your individual benefit.

In a communist society, everything is restricted for the sake of others or the "LOOK AT ME, GREATER GOOD" Bullshit excuse.

You have to agree with these guys to stay around, and be loyal to, if you turn your back. Well you are either going to the gulag or concentration camp.

These fascists and communist demand you abide by their ideals which clearly makes it harder to be yourself if don't want to support anyone or anything. They can force you to go to Sunday practice or their monthly comrade check up.

So fuck the authoritarians. Wealth might be a thing in Fascistic society ( they are socialist versions like George Stasser's Fascism ), but Anarcho-Capitalism isn't as harsh on it. Copyright wouldn't exist at all!

While the anarchist guy might mob rule you, that's if you are trying to rule them.... While the Anarcho-Capitalism wants to do is business and dealing like usual! Though try to make as many businesses as possible to ensure the amount of work everyone can do and get.

There is a tactical advantage of being in the extremes though. You have more voting power. How radical you are gives you more given power to vote againist the other side, at the expense of your peers. As you can get people from the center slightly towards your camp and choice of label. While easier to take down the other opposing side.

I fully agree with that mainly due to. Oversight for controlling words that come out of people's mouthes ( Looking at Germany and Britian, or any EU country or Chinese hell hole ) North korea you are beyond belief.... So by knocking out people in power... It leaves more open room for the average man to be his own man, and not have to be loyal to anyone or anything. Which was a very good freedom for the Wild West. You had to think before you do, you couldn't take advantage of class or social association to be given lesser or worse punishment.

Anarcho-Transhumanism and Mutualism come closest.

I can't stand Breadtube, as they're so spectacular at stretching the word Nazi beyond the point of meaningfulness.

And as a trans person, I'm sick and tired of non trans people leading the discussion of trans issues. You don't have to be a Blaire White lover to see that Aliengender, Autismgender, and the 1,000 catagories gender are made up BS to make trans people look like their condition is imaginary.

Youtube is like what Tumblr was.

I'm a leftist, and I still find Breadtube embarassing to associate with. They've become the strawman right wingers point to.

( And yes I'm a leftist, I'm just tired of being lumped in with intersectional feminism. )

We do not live in a universe where perfection is possible. No matter how advanced a government, system, or civilization may be flaws will exist. The great challenge every civilization will face is the challenge of honesty. Can the people knowledge the reality of the flaws in their system. Or will they lie to themselves? And lie about the people who say things they don't want to hear? If a culture or civilization fails this test not only will they be destroyed, they'll deserve it.

{*triumphant applause*} Dutch Van Der Linde, errybody! #DUTCH2020!!! He's the man who's got A PLAN!

I'll just go with giving women the ultimatum that the only way to remove sexual harassment at work is to remove all men, then force all the women to work and pay for our tendies.

Well, the problem is that deep down I know none of these would play out this well in the real world, but I suppose the real world is sure not what I'm on Newgrounds for...

Anarcho-capitalism, for me! Free the cocaine! (but not too free, of course)

Anarcho-Transhumanist. I'm pretty much done with communists at this point. They seem blissfully unaware of the fact that it's possible to both apolitical and anarchist.

All that is required to be anarchist, is a general distrust in all authority, and feeling that all authority should be questioned. That includes people that wish to be dogmatic at other people, for whatever narcissistic reason in order to promote their sense of superiority.

To my understanding of leftist Anarchists, don't they push against unnecessary hierarchies, with Government being considered one of the "unnecessary" ones? It doesn't sound like that would've been a good fit for you, in the first place.

But if we can just pick any extremist position, that kinda ruins the thought experiment, doesn't it? THEN AGAIN, fuck the rules, amirite?

Yea it's really counter intuitive right? You might think Leftists would push against all hierarchies. Then again, for every Emericain Johnson there is also a Non Serviam Media.

Certainly not all Leftists are completely insane.

There is this channel I found where apparently not being outspoken makes you a Nazi. What if like, ... the very aspect of your being outspoken is what's causing youtube to try to deplatform you?

( It's one of the reasons I moved to another host. ) I'm critical of both contrapoints and blaire white. Putting me in a weird extreme center position I don't identity.

I'm for commarcho-capifascism