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 →

[–]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

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

What is wrong with which government?

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

Yes, you should definitely hide in your bubble to maintain the illusion that you can defend your indefensible beliefs.

[–]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.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

Property and buisness rights are inherently in conflict with socialist and communist principles. At that point the conversation isn't about what form our economy should take, but how much welfare should the state be providing.

And if that is the conversation you are trying to have then don't start a conversation about socialism, because it isn't relevant.

The only apparent difference in what we have and what you want is the amout of welfare and wealth redistribution.

[–]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.