Where are all the conservative socialists in the West?

submitted by IamCleaver from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (113 children)

Socialism as a theory had conservative believers, however there has been 100 years of communist and socialist experiments proving how horrible it is in practice. The only people dumb enough to still advocate it are ignorant children brainwashed by jews, and low IQ bottom feeders who live on welfare.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (75 children)

Socialist programs advocated for by the Right:

  • Taxes
  • Government
  • Military
  • Police
  • Fire Department
  • Healthcare*

 

* Some restrictions may apply.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What are you trying to say?

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What is a socialist program? The mafia governments take all our taxes, don't bother asking how we'd like them spent, and decide for us how they will spend it, including their salaries, expenses, all all those services, utilities, and programs.

They are not JUST socialist programs advocated for by the Right, as the Left and centrists support them too. The further you go from Totalitarianism towards Voluntaryism the less you are likely to support mafia government and their "socialism".

Even "capitalist" governments are still paid for by socialism, otherwise they'd be government for profit in no need of taxes (or would shrivel and die without funding).

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Our taxes? It isn't our taxes. I might not be paying any taxes because I am a hobo on the street. What good would it be for me if the government were to stop collecting taxes from people and entities who can afford to pay them?

Corporations should only exist for the purpose of producing taxing them. They are the milking cows. When your cow stops producing milk you slaughter it and eat it.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (71 children)

Socialism is government ownership of buisness. All forms of government have taxes and government institutions.

If what you listed were socialism then the socialists should STFU because they already have it, right?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (58 children)

"Socialism is government ownership of business." That is a narrow deffiniton. That isn't what I mean when I say "socialism". The businesses can be owned by anyone (unless it is a strategically important business, in which case the government should indeed have the majority of the shares), but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible and that those taxes are benefiting the whole society and providing help for the needy.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

That is a narrow deffiniton.

No, that is THE definition. If you mean something else than use a different word. What you are doing is repeating propaganda from hucksters who literally want communism, see socialism as a stepping stone, and tricked people like you into supporting that first step by lying to you about what socialism is. You, nor they, get to redefine socialism. That is not how language works. Socialism has a definition, if that is not what you mean then YOU are using the word wrong.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

No, it's an EXTREMELY NARROW definition. The entire English-speaking world has been the object of a vast psyop brainwashing campaign to make you believe that is THE definition, so you can't think the entire spectrum of socioeconomic thought and from there, control you. It's working extremely well. Your VERY NARROW definition comes from whom? From Marx of course, you communist.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Marx invented it therfore he gets to name it. You don't get to use his word and claim it means something else.

Not using socialism to talk a out shit that is not socialism does not prevent you from talking about those other things. You can invent your own names for the made up systems you invented. Calling your made up shit socialism does nothing but muddy the water and create confusion. It is completely counter productive, unless your intent is to pull a bait and switch; tricking idiots to support "socialism" by convincing them it's this other thing then switching in real socialism when those fools help you destroy the current system.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Eh, nope. Marx didn't invent it, the word SOCIALISM was about a century old when he wrote Das Kapital. He twisted the definition around so hard, he pretended it meant the contrary of what it did.

In 1840, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon published a book in which he explained his anarchist socialist philosophy and how it might get implemented. It remained DIAMETRICALLY opposite the meaning you and Marx attribute to the term.

Freaking COMMUNISTS. Stop it Canbot. Please, just tell us you are a die-hard communist, since you are repeating Marx's written diarrhea and delusions.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Socialism is communism lite.

Both claim to solve all problems through government. One claims government will have this power (and dutifully fulfill all promises) if only you give government full control of buisness. The other simply says that buisness is not enough, you must give over control of property as well. Once socialism fails to fulfill its promises the only thing to do is go even further into that same logic and give up property.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope. Try again.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

From Google's dictionary: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned OR regulated by the community as a whole" That is at least on of definitions. By this definitions, businesses might not be directly owned by the government, as long as the government is keeping them in check. I believe in strong government regulation of (mostly) privately owned business. If you support a stricter definition of "socialism" then you have that right, but for now, the term fits my meaning, at least in sensu lato.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

"The community as a whole" IS GOVERNMENT!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Really. That is so strange. We are all politicians? I wonder in what dimension you live, dude. Schyzophrenialand?

Here is a proper definition of socialism: https://philosophyterms.com/socialism/

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Government is not defined by being run by politicians, it is literally anyone who governs. Even a pure democracy still has a government. But a pure democracy on a scale of more than 100 or so people is impossible. No two people will agree on everything. The more people you have the more conflict there is.

If you are stuck on trying to redefine socialism you clearly have nothing intelligent to say.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So what is wrong with the government? I AM a statist

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

YOU are the one spouting communist propaganda and saying I am redefining things. Sigh. I should have kept you blocked.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

but the government should make sure that they are producing as much taxes as possible

So basically take all the money and redistribute it. 🙄🤭 How is that NOT the government owning the buisness?

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (40 children)

Because it isn't taking ALL the profit. Just as much as it can get away with while still making the business a valuable asset for its owner. Let me clarify if: I was probably a bit too harsh. A business can provide benefit for a society in multiple ways. Taxes is the most obvious one but others include providing jobs, providing necessary services that a government is unable to effectively provide, etc. The point is: business should exist for the benefit of the society, not the other way round. If the business is not socially valuable in any other way, then at least it should be milked for taxes. Just because somebody is making a profit doesn't mean the business is socially valuable.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

It is so vague and subjective that all your claims are lies. You have no grounds to claim "its not all profit". There are no limits set in your system, and everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything.

All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness. But what leftists want is to have control over buisness on the pretext that they are serving the community when they are just being tyrants. Just like all the social media giants censor ideas they don't like on claims of hate speech, and community guidelines violations.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (38 children)

"here are no limits set in your system" There is: if you take too much the business will go bankrupt. That benefits nobody.

"everyone knows that if the government has the power to take everything then they will take everything" I don't "know" that. That is just libertarian bullshit.

"All businesses provide a benefit or they go out of buisness." If by benefit you mean somebody wants them then yes. This is not how I define "benefit". A drug dealer is a beneficial business by your definition. I say that the community has the right to decide whether a particular business is beneficial and therefor has the right to exist. If it benefits a minority at the expense of the majority then it should cease existing.

Of cause we should control business. Without tight government control, private enterprise is just a merciless money-making machine that stops at nothing to increase its profit. May I remind you that social media giants are businesses and require VERY tight government control.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

if you take too much the business will go bankrupt.

That is not a limit so much as the inevitable conclusion. A limit would be something like a constitution protecting the rights of buisness owners and limiting the amount the government can take.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Of cause you need that. Nobody says that the government should be able to come and take your property... just tax you out of existence if it deems so necessary.

As long as business has no say in politics, pays its taxes and adheres to government policies it should be left to its own devices.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

If what you listed were socialism then the socialists should STFU because they already have it, right?

They don't all have healthcare, among other things. It's a big wide grey area, ripe for disaster capitalism to exploit.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

They have medicaid, Medicare, and Obama care. If we gave all medical power over to the government we would be absolutely fucked right now with forced experimental jabs. They would deny medical coverage to anyone not compliant. Thank God we haven't made that mistake yet.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Somehow, ALL European countries have handed their medical power to the government and are doing just fine.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah right, just like Australia turned over its guns and they are totally fine too. 😅

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Australia was fine, more or less - until the scamdemic.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, thats how it goes. Everything is fine until it isn't. Which is why it is so stupid when the left claims that Americans have no basis to want guns for protection from government because the current government is not tyrannical.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Truth.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only the USA has the kind of government it has. Everywhere else there is some sort of moral standard to at least APPEAR to uphold while in government. In Europe for example, tradition and moral values are rooted in a history that is literally thousands of years old. This is the reason (((they))) have focused on bringing migrants first and foremost to Europe. The people were fairly monolithic in their ways, until you brought destructively foreign hordes of "refugees". Their very nice systems are holding, for now.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Guns? What would civilians need guns for? Weapons should be very tightly controlled. The state must keep its monopoly on violence lest everything turns to chaos.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And now they have the most tyrannical government of any first world country.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They were, more or less, with decent socialized medicine that was behaving within reason - before the scamdemic.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You're right about their abuses, but it's not that cut and dried.

I'm quite certain poor people needing operations would do the jab Russian roulette just to have that cancer carved out of them. This is not a solution by any means, but it illustrates how the US government is holding "healthcare" ransom - just as the Canadian government is now with this global scamdemic.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (36 children)

To you I wish to loose everything dime you have so you would have to rely on welfare to survive. I hope that might teach you a lesson on why we need it. If you do get welfare, you might recover and stand up back on your feet again. Without social welfare, you would probably starve...

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

I would rather see communities keep their taxes and deal with their own problems wisely than have the mafia government force their final "solutions" on us.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Municipalities with more freedom? I am all for it. One question though: who will help out poor communities? Who will guarantee that a rich community shares its wealth with the rest? Who will build high-speed trains and other large-scale infrastructure that benefits the whole nation? Who will maintain the military?...you get the point: we need a strong central government non the less. If I were American though, I would advocate for reducing the rights of States and increasing the rights of municipalities while keeping the central government intact.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

One question though: who will help out poor communities?

Excellent questions. It's not meant to be simply fixed.

Another question: Who will take the boot off the necks of poor communities?

Who needs such a huge obscene military? Only industrial death.

Who needs high-speed consumerism?

Who needs toxic environments?

Who needs taxes?

Tyrants.

we need a strong central government non the less.

Yes/no.

If I were American though, I would advocate for reducing the rights of States and increasing the rights of municipalities while keeping the central government intact.

Interesting idea.

How's this suit you?:

Weakest: National
Weak: State
Strongest: County & Municipal

All the strong county and municipalities would need to co-operate together at the state and then national levels. We're no longer limited to the time it takes to ride a horse to another state, so communicating and organizing with modern tech is instant. Unified cooperative regions with strength create a strong state. Unified cooperative states with strength create a strong nation.

Despite all the bullshit, most Americans have more in common with each other than with others around the world. The propaganda makes folks loose sight of this. Rather than focusing on all this divisive bullshit, we'd have to try to focus on unity for strength.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

"Tyrants." Sounds like a straw man.

"How's this suit you?:" Not really. I would want to live in a unified nation. I would prefer something like this:

Strongest: National

Weakest: State

Strong: Municipality

If I were American, I would want unify the criminal code for all states and hand the authority over it to the central government. Same for education standards. Healthcare, universities and highways should be handles by the States, but that is pretty much it.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I would want unify the criminal code for all states and hand the authority over it to the central government.

Ripe for rampant abuses.

/s/DecentralizeAllThings and collectively create universal standards to measure things so everyone everywhere can benefit from "uniformity" that way, rather than from central command.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

"Ripe for rampant abuses." How so? Most countries manage to do with a single, nation-wide legal system just fine. "...collectively..." That is what the national parliament is for.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Your blind faith in the system is unsettling.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

You blind faith in the market is unsettling.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think when talking about the USA anyway, you are lacking in understanding of the mentality of the people there. Remember, they have riots at walmart on Black Friday. You don't see that anywhere else. It's a very particular place.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I would like to hear which country you are from to have these views.

But suffice it to say that power corrupts. The people need to keep A VERY STRONG GRIP on their officials or else, totalitarianism ensues. Look at Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, France, and soon EVERYWHERE... Tyranny.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Russia. It is a pretty common world view here. It seems to be almost absent in the West from what I have gathered.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

In my view, you can only allow a central government to be strong if the nation has a strong, nationalist leader. In most of the world, there are no leaders at all, so there can't be a strong central government because in such a case, it quickly becomes the representative of the rich and already powerful, and tyranny ensues. This is what is happening in most of the world right now.

As such, the only solution for most nations is direct democracy such as there was in Lybia before it got "liberated" by evil. In Russia you are lucky to have such a leader at this crucial moment in your national history. Hopefully he is a true nationalist and not a sellout to the subhuman parasites that ruin everything.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

a strong, nationalist leader

Is only ever a figurehead.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Genghis Khan was a figurehead huh. Damn.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Genghis Khan was a figurehead huh.

Yes he was.

Without his legions of followers, establishment systems, political landscape, and various opportunities, he would have been just a solo rampaging lunatic if he wanted to slaughter throngs of people. He didn't just decide to do that on a madman's whim though - the political climate, opportunities, and support were there and he with his trusted advisors navigated their conquests.

If you don't see than then you are just another megalomaniac idol worshiper in the cult of personality.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"you can only allow a central government to be strong if the nation has a strong, nationalist leader." True. The system should promote strong nationalist leaders.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The only system that did was that of the NSDAP in the first half of the XXth century Germany.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Time to try again. This time, lets keep it civil.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In the USA, the Federal government is pure evil. Moreso than most places.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

People who use unemployment temporarily to get back on thier feet do not support socialis. Social safety nets are not socialism. The problem with those is leaches always want more. We already have too many welfare programs and people take far more than thier share and squander it on frivolous shit.

A lot of people simply refuse to work, collect benefits multiple times, spend it on drugs, and despise all the "stupid" people working hard and being forced to support them.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

If a welfare program is being exploited by those who don't need it it is a badly designed welfare program. That should have been accounted for before its implementation. A good example of a safeguard would be giving out food instead of hard cash. Or giving a card that can only be used to buy particular products.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Let's fix the programs we have, then people will be more likely to accept new programs.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What programs do you have that you don't like?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Free cell phones and internet.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Why? Since internet is something everyone uses it should be a free service. Obviously you should put a cap on how much someone should be able to use for free a month like 30GB or so, but everyone should be able to freely access it.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Because it's not free, tax payers are paying for it. And it is a distraction not a tool they use to better themselves.

[–]IamCleaver[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"tax payers are paying for it" Good. If they have the money to spare they should pay their taxes which could be used to help the needy.

"And it is a distraction not a tool they use to better themselves." Another conspiracy theory? You are using it right now.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's more of a problem with the American mentality of ultra materialism and extreme self-entitlement than a problem of systems.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What you write is only true in the USA. Even here in the relatively close culture of Canada, people go on unemployment, or even sometimes welfare, but FEEL A NEED TO BE A CONTRIBUTING MEMBER OF SOCIETY. You don't have that in the USA. It's all about money and self-entitlement. But that is completely unique to the USA. So your narrow view that such a system doesn't work is founded on the idea that the American way is somehow universal. It really is not.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let's agree then that it would never work in the US.