Posts by crimsonwolf20

I’m telling you guys—it’s about time we started looking at things through a different lens! I was just reading some stuff online and it hit me: this scale may apply more to the US than other countries when it comes to how much breathing room we actually have versus how much the government thinks they can squeeze out of us. It’s wild, man! I was talking to Jamie Price about this earlier, and they were making a point that really stuck with me regarding how our current Foreign Policy basically ignores the individual liberties that make this country what it is. Like, why are we sending billions overseas to stabilize regions that don't even care about our values, while back home, people are getting tripped up by red tape over the smallest things? It feels totally backwards! And don't even get me started on the way certain groups try to push their agendas through massive federal agencies... it's like they forget we're supposed to be a nation of free individuals, not just cogs in some giant, bureaucratic machine. We need that Libertarian spirit back in the mainstream, seriously! Let's get back to basics: hands off my property, hands off my business, and hands off my life. That’s the American way, right? Let's keep fighting for it!
So, here’s how the numbers shake out: Right is sitting at an 8.4, while the Libertarian score is hanging out at 6.04. This scale may apply more to the US than other countries!
I can't actually see the image you linked—it looks like a broken link or a private grid file! But honestly, if it’s one of those political spectrum charts, I am all over it. Those things are always such a trip, right? It’s funny how people try to pin everyone down on a little two-dimensional map, but let's be real—human beings are way too messy for that. You've got your die-hard Libertarian types, your hardcore progressives, and then there's that massive, chaotic middle ground where most of us are just trying to figure out which side of the aisle won't make us lose our minds. If you were trying to show me some specific data or a meme about where certain politicians land, definitely try uploading the actual picture! I’d love to dive into it and give you my two cents. I bet we could have a whole debate going about whether this scale may apply more to the US than other countries, because American politics feels like its own weird, isolated ecosystem sometimes! Drop the pic again—I'm ready!

Foreign Policy:
It’s basically a classic split, right? You’ve got the pacifists and all the anti-war activists holding down the left flank—people who just want peace and no more fighting. Then, looking over at the right, you’ve got the folks pushing for a massive, powerhouse military that’s ready to jump in and intervene anywhere on the globe at a moment's notice. It's such a huge divide!
I can't believe I actually pulled it off! Seriously, I’m still buzzing from that result—talk about a massive win! It feels like all that grinding finally paid off in a huge way. Honestly, seeing those numbers hit the screen was such a rush—total adrenaline spike, you know? Just feeling incredibly stoked right now! -5.53

Culture:
So, where do you guys actually land in the whole culture war mess? Are you leaning more toward the liberal camp, or are you holding it down on the conservative side? Honestly, this scale may apply more to the US than other countries—it feels like we're living in the absolute epicenter of it all!
You scored: -1.52

Foreign Policy:
Look, it’s basically a massive split in how we see things—on one side, you've got the pacifists and the folks who are all about anti-war activism, right? Then, looking at the flip side, you've got the crowd pushing for a powerhouse military that's ready to step in and intervene anywhere on the map. It's such a huge divide!
You scored: -5.53

👍

The kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper just don't have the same shot at life.

Man, this is actually pretty interesting! I mean—obviously they don't have the same opportunities. It’s like you and LeBron James, right? He’s this massive African American icon born and raised in the States, and let's be real—you aren't him! You don't have the same breaks that someone like Drew Barrymore or Angelina Jolie had, coming from families deep inside the Hollywood elite. On the flip side, you don't even have the "opportunities" of some Indian pauper born into total destitution, sitting there typing on a gadget that could probably feed those poor folks for an entire year. At the end of the day, what matters is that nobody gets special treatment under the law—that every single individual is equal. That's really the only thing we can actually level out.

There is absolutely nothing weird or unnatural about this. Inequality is part of nature—it's actually desirable! We shouldn't try to fix it, no matter how much force we throw at it. There will always be people who are hardworking and frugal, and then there'll be the smart ones, the big spenders, the responsible types, and yeah, the complete idiots—all of them exist so that even if we tried to redistribute everything equally tomorrow, by the day after, the inequalities would all be back again.

Here is what I want to know: if I’m being smart, saving my money and investing wisely just so I can give my kid a smoother ride in life, where on earth do you get the right to come along and forcibly snatch that away from me just to hand it to some other kid whose dad didn't bother to save or invest a dime?

That is the absolute heart of the whole argument.

Steven Murphy2 said:Do Nazis actually believe in equality of outcome? 😁 Not even close. They value the individual, even within their own race. Look, if you’ve got capital but you aren't following pro-natalist policies—say, you decide to just blow all your inheritance money on nonsense instead of building a family—the state isn't going to let that slide; they'll lower taxes for some and hike them for others. And if it's the other way around? Well, then you're looking at selection processes, which ultimately means banning the "worst" from breeding. The whole goal of the Nazi Party was to create ubermenschen. Equality of outcome would mean forcing the so-called untermensch to compete on equal footing with the best—like making the sick compete with the healthy, or the bad worker with the good one, or the failing student with the genius—which would totally wreck their entire blueprint.

Classical liberals—the ones who actually give a damn about freedom—believe in equality of opportunity through equality before the law, not equality of outcome forced by a regime. That’s why they are fundamentally different from those socialist variants mentioned earlier.

Let's be real: the kid of a millionaire and the kid of a pauper don't have equal opportunities. Because of that, liberalism—with its obsession with "equal opportunity"—starts looking a lot like Communism. Why? Because Communists argue that if an heir hasn't actually worked for their wealth, they shouldn't inherit it; they claim it's inherently unfair that someone gets such a massive head start compared to someone starting from zero. And honestly? The Communists are right when they say true equality of opportunity comes down to economics. This liberal push for equality is basically a slippery slope straight into Communism. Now, the Nazis didn't see anything wrong with unequal opportunities, provided the heir was working for the good of the nation. Unequal opportunity is just how nature works, and through selection, it creates a better society based on racial philosophy. Mind you, they didn't invent this; they just adopted it. Eugenics only became a dirty word because the cultural Left took over, launching these unhinged, purely emotional attacks against its proponents. From that, they manufactured a "new science" that uses laws and media to shut down any debate, because it's way too easy to just slap the "Nazi" label on anyone and call it a day.

Even the Nazis believed in equality before the law, because breaking that rule would mean the entire social order would just collapse.

You can't run a state without some form of socialism. States exist for a reason—because humans wanted to rise above small, primitive tribes. Just because Germany had a labor right wing that wasn't "politically correct" doesn't mean we should go copying them. There's this fear of conservative workers—who are usually the majority—that exists among both conservatives and self-proclaimed progressives, mostly because they're terrified that a truly conservative labor movement would actually fight for what workers need. Hitler rose to power because the German conservatives were so narrow-minded; even the people who wanted change couldn't convince their conservative buddies that change was necessary. The shifts coming to the world will be driven by American workers, and it's up to them to position themselves so they don't get screwed over by big capital. This whole topic is basically a case study for how to reorganize things after major shifts in Europe. Conservatives who try to act like liberals already failed the test back in Germany when there wasn't even an immigration issue; they can't afford to make that mistake again if they actually want to avoid totalitarianism.

Everything you just laid out is basically just an attempt to force equality of outcome via socialist redistribution of wealth on a massive scale. They weren't claiming to be "friends of the working class" for nothing!

A millionaire's kid and a poor kid don't have the same opportunities.

Oh, of course they do!

In that sense, liberalism—with its obsession over equal opportunity—ends up looking just like communism because communists argue that if an heir hasn't actually worked for their money, they shouldn't inherit the capital, since it's "unfair" for them to have such a head start compared to someone inheriting nothing.

Wait, what kind of liberalism are we even talking about here? A classical liberal recognizes there are differences, sure, but their whole thing is about possibilities and equality of opportunity. In the capitalist West, most of the people sitting in that top 1% today aren't going to be there in ten years, and they weren't there ten years ago either. That's economic mobility right there! A wealthy person can blow their entire fortune in a heartbeat, and a person starting from nothing can work hard, invent something, or provide a service people want and strike it rich. Economic mobility is the holy grail for individualists and free-market advocates. It has absolutely zero to do with Marxist fairy tales or "communism."

Communists are right when they say equal opportunity comes from the economy. The liberal pursuit of equality leads straight to communism.

.
?!?
What kind of communism are you talking about, for heaven's sake?! Communism is a collective ideology—unless you're talking about the nonsense peddled by Marx and Engels, who honestly thought they could build a society where everyone is simultaneously a fisherman, a poet, and a painter all in one day. Just pure romantic daydreaming from third-rate ideologues.

The Nazis see nothing wrong with unequal opportunities as long as the heir is working for the good of the nation.

So, look—you gotta follow the central plan if you're playing by the rules of any socialist system. Period.

Nature is what created unequal opportunities in the first place! And through selection, it builds a better society based on natural philosophy. We should be clear that this isn't some new invention—it was already there—but eugenics turned into a dirty word because the cultural left took over, launching these totally unhinged emotional attacks against its supporters. Because of that, they manufactured a whole new "science" that uses laws and the media to shut down any debate; if you even try to talk about it, they just slap the "Nazi" label on you and boom—conversation over.

.
Exactly! That’s why the only move we have left is to establish a legal system where every single individual is treated equally, and then just let the market competition play out among the players.

Even the Nazis believed in equality before the law, because breaking that rule means the whole order just falls apart.

Sure, equality before the law applies—as long as you aren't an undesirable, a Jew, a Romani, or whatever else. Basically, it's just "identity politics," which is the favorite little trick of today's leftists.

You can't organize a state without socialism; states exist because humans wanted to rise above just being small, primitive tribes. Just because Germany had a working-class right wing that wasn't politically correct doesn't mean we should all start imitating them. This fear of conservative workers—who actually make up the majority—exists among both conservatives and those self-proclaimed progressives, mostly because they're terrified that true working-class conservatism would actually fight for the interests of the workers. Hitler rose to power because the German conservatives had such a narrow view of the world—even the ones who wanted change couldn't convince their conservative buddies that change was absolutely necessary. The shifts happening in the world will be driven by European workers, and it's up to them to position themselves so they don't get played by big capital. This whole topic is really just one example of how to reorganize things after the massive changes coming to Europe. Conservatives who want to act like liberals already failed the test once back in Germany when there weren't even immigrants around; they can't afford to make that mistake again if they actually want to avoid totalitarianism.

But let's be real: the Nazi Party grabbed its power by abusing massive state authority at the expense of citizens' freedoms and rights, and it was their specific flavor of socialist philosophy and social engineering that made it possible. And it's not just them—every single socialist mess turns into a totalitarian nightmare because you need a massive, overbearing state to pull off the kind of type of engineering those central planners dream up.

Steven Murphy2 said:Look, liberals and leftists actually have one thing in common that National Socialism completely lacks—and that’s a fundamental belief in equality and democracy. Because of that, National Socialism is basically the polar opposite of everything stemming from liberalism—whether you're talking about the classic left, the right, the center, or even Communism (which, let's face it, is all about economic equality). It’s even the antithesis of Christianity, which was the whole precursor to liberal thought. That’s exactly why this kind of right-wing radicalism is so dangerous. Unlike those egalitarian ideologies, National Socialism was built on different foundations entirely, using "scientific" arguments to try and dismantle the whole concept of religious equality. I’m actually sitting here reading right now about how conservative theorists were actually against totalitarianism back then—they were genuinely terrified of Hitler. It’s honestly such a shame because their concerns ended up giving people the idea that being a conservative after WWII meant something inherently bad. But the truth is, that specific brand of socialism you're attacking? It was the only real barrier keeping Communism from sweeping through France, Spain, and probably most of Europe.

You hit the nail on the head there—honestly, they don't know anything else. It’s like their entire playbook is just built on censorship and force. If they can't ban it or bully you into silence, they don't even know how to handle it. Seriously, what else do they have in their toolkit? Nothing.

What are "wars for democracy" if not just raw force being used to trigger an inevitable clash of cultures? I mean, really, think about it—what’s an employment contract besides a way to force people to play by someone else's rules? And poverty? That's nothing more than the direct result of the strong squeezing the weak. You can't just look the other way and pretend force doesn't exist—it's right there in front of us. So, how does the fight for equality actually show up in the real world? It manifests through terrorist attacks. There, I said it.

Look, let’s be real—there isn't even a functioning liberal right in America. And that’s a massive problem because they should be the only ones actually looking out for both the working class and small business owners. I mean, think about it. Why do you think millions of people have packed up and fled these disastrous leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West? It’s because nobody is running *away* from capitalism into some socialist fever dream—it’s always the other way around. People move toward opportunity, not away from it. It's common sense, really.

The "liberal right" is a total oxymoron—like, seriously, how does that even make sense? The right doesn't peddle those tired old slogans about "equal opportunity for everyone," and honestly, if the liberal capitalist West keeps heading down this path, we’re looking at a total meltdown. Think about it—back during the last major elections, like 70% of the population turned out to vote. You really think all of them were pulling for Trump? Of course not. The problem is that conservatives are clinging to this version of liberalism that only looks at things through the lens of a single individual rather than the nation as a whole. If you don't account for birth rates and instead just reduce everything to some cold, ruthless market logic, you're asking for trouble. You'll end up waking up an aggressive, non-Western proletariat—which, let's be real, is exactly what the communists are banking on. This whole obsession with the "dogma of equality" is just a slippery slope straight to communism, which always talks big about economic equality but has never, ever actually worked in practice.

So, here's the deal: Nazis and international socialists both believe in equality of outcome—except the first group only cares about it for specific races, while the second group claims they want to make it happen for everyone.

But honestly? The real issue lies in the core belief driving these ideologies—the idea that you can just force some kind of equality (especially economic equality) onto people. This connection between them is super important because trying to force "equality" in the real world requires a massive government machine, rigid laws, draconian punishments, and it gives the regime a perfect excuse to paint anyone who breaks the rules as a traitor to the national interest just to grab more power and stay in control. To pull this off, they end up using informants, spies, invading privacy, and all sorts of human rights violations. In other words, to get that level of economic control suggested by all socialists—including these two different flavors—you absolutely need a police state. The more control you want, the more brute force you have to use.

Classic liberals—the ones who actually believe in freedom—believe in equality of opportunity through equality before the law, not forcing equality of outcome through government coercion. That’s why, at their core, they are fundamentally different from those socialist variants.

Amanda Allen4 said:Economic leftists and rightists loathe one another because they are rivals within the same project—the "centrally planned society," as you so aptly put it.

In reality, an outcast or a heretic from within one's own faith is hated far more intensely than someone following a completely different religion! Therefore, it stands to reason that the proponents of the "centrally planned society" catechism cannot stand one another—namely, those who demand power through nationalization and the total abolition of private property (the Communists), and those who prefer the simpler route of exercising power by controlling private property (the Fascists).

They can't stand each other mostly because they're wrestling for the exact same voter base! That's why the Nazi Party were such bitter rivals to the international socialists—it wasn't even about doctrine, which was almost identical at times, but about the brutal struggle to actually seize power.

If you look at what's happening here in the States, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are basically just economic leftists in disguise—total true believers in the cult of statism and the idea that the government needs to stick its nose into every single corner of life (not just the economy!). You hit the nail on the head there; they only really speak the language of bans and coercion. And honestly, the only reason these economic leftists fight so hard over World War II is because if they didn't have that, they'd be virtually indistinguishable from one another!

In America, we don't really have a functioning liberal right, which would actually be the best friend to both workers and entrepreneurs. That's exactly why millions fled those leftist economic experiments to head toward the capitalist West—nobody ever fled the other way! Even today, people are still running away from economically restrictive environments toward freer markets. The results of decades of this economic leftist nonsense and everyone competing to see who can be the biggest socialist are staring us right in the face. Just look at how things are going...

goldenpuma84 said:Why is everyone so obsessed with communism? Is it really that hard to forget your family background? Screw communism.

So, based on your post, am I supposed to conclude that the groups still hiding behind Hitler throughout Europe today are actually leftists? Is Ante Pavelić a leftist? Were those hundred-odd Rightist parties actually left-wing groups?

The actual difference between left and right lies in the approach to nationalism—whether it's placed on a transcendental pedestal, or whether there's a focus on individual liberties. It's about whether things like abortion rights are considered personal choices, whether religious affiliation is a private matter, and whether individuals decide for themselves what constitutes a good life. It's about questioning nationalist myth-making, acknowledging that being part of a nation doesn't automatically make us right, and emphasizing equality among all people regardless of any single identifier.

By those standards, even that theoretical communism you're so fixated on (practice is a different story, as we see in America, where it's easy for a communist to become a nationalist—in fact, here, there's hardly a nationalist who wasn't once a communist) has absolutely nothing to in common with Nazism.

"All men are brothers," says the great communist, "except Aryans are the creators of culture, and everyone else is lesser," says the great Nazi. And that is a massive, unbridgeable gap. That's the essence.

Look, for the last time: the Nazis were a right-wing party. That's how they saw themselves, that's how neo-Nazis see themselves today, that's how the whole world sees them, and that's how they are presented in all academic literature and textbooks. The Nazis sit on the right side of the political spectrum; it's just you and people like you who see the world differently. Why? Because they weren't for liberal capitalism (which doesn't mean they weren't for capitalism at all).

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there... The Left is all about being cosmopolitan and universalist, while the Right just isn't. That’s the core grievance. Most people on this forum seem to think the Left's biggest sin is just being too rootless...[/HTML][/I]

The Nationalists advocated for "American socialism," which means the leftists and collectivists—at least when it comes to the most vital part of a political program—deal with the relationship between the state and the citizen. Just Google "American socialism."

Just because they were nationalists doesn't take away from their leftist worldview regarding a massive state, the nationalization of industry, stripping away economic freedoms, state monopolies on services, an all-powerful government that dictates prices, central redistribution of wealth based on the planners' whims, a central bank under total state control, and de facto party ownership of what is nominally private property.

It's just like the National Socialist German Workers' Party in Germany, which is socialist at its core, just like their name and platform confirm. They were economic leftists. You supporters of the centrally planned society might find that uncomfortable to admit, but your struggling won't change the cold, hard facts.

David Vaughn75 said:Let's be real, though: people can be pretty corrupt. If left to their own devices, most folks would grab everything in sight and wouldn't lift a finger to give anything back.

You need someone out there to actually reel in those low-level, selfish impulses.

Oh yeah, totally! And the best people for that job would obviously be those super benevolent, big-hearted political cronies and parasites—because we all know they aren't corrupt or greedy at all, right? Just a bunch of "supermen" guided by pure love and integrity! 🤦

Steven Murphy2 said:And look, if the state collapses, what's left? You're facing off against private owners with their own security teams (which we have right now) and private armies (which we don't... yet).😁 When you lack what you need, you go out and earn it, and let me tell you—capitalists are the same everywhere. At the end of the day, all a person cares about is survival. Now, I’m not talking about bare-bones survival here—we aren't living in the jungle—I'm talking about making extra cash to actually spend. Even capitalists would agree to that, along with workers who lean nationalist rather than communist (the workers) or liberal (the capitalists). Honestly, I just need to see how billionaire Trump handled those corporations when they tried to flee the US—that's probably why some small-time bourgeois types call him a leftist. That's exactly what I'm advocating for in this thread, because there's always the threat of capital flight. Liberalism is an ideological philosophy, not an economic one. Economic philosophies are capitalism and communism. A state held under private ownership can build a system that works for everyone—it's both capitalist AND socialist. Without socialism, you couldn't even organize a family, let alone a business (where you've got to divide the pie and work together) or a whole damn country. You have to make a massive distinction from communism, which ends up screwing over American workers and capitalists alike. It's no different with liberalism; falling birth rates mean a higher demand for labor, while this imaginary workforce is basically created to fuel terrorist attacks and hike up social welfare payments.

Quincy:

Of course not. If you're stupid enough to sign a contract that screws you over, maybe that's your version of "freedom"?

But what if the contracts are identical everywhere in America, with the exact same wages?

Quincy:

If we're all equal before the law and guaranteed freedoms like freedom of speech, how can one person be able to exercise those rights while someone else gets less?

What kind of worker actually has the money to hire Hanžeković? The legal system is rigged so that only a select few can even understand it. I recently heard about a case where a guy working within the legal system had to pay $467 just to get an answer.

So, basically, you're arguing for a crippled market economy where the government sticks its nose into everything just to satisfy whatever plans the political elites cooked up.

I just don't trust them, period. They don't know how to handle my money any better than I do, and they certainly don't have a track record of success—they've wasted billions! They buy votes using other people's money, provide zero actual services, hold monopolies on essential goods, and kill off any competition. They’ve saddled our kids with debt without even asking them, and on top of all that, they try to tell you what you can or can't put in your own body, limiting fundamental freedoms like the right to enjoy the fruits of your own labor or simply the right to speak your mind.

Where does this blind faith in politicians come from? Seriously, why do you think they can shape our lives any better than we can ourselves?

What if contracts are the same everywhere, with the exact same wages in America?

The labor market is just like any other market, and the laws of economics apply to it just as much as they do to any other good. We're talking about the natural, inherent laws of supply and demand—laws that even dictators haven't been able to break, no matter how much force they throw against voluntary transactions.

Market principles allow you to find a way out in a million different ways. One way is to be productive; another is to pick up a scarce skill or a trade—the more in demand you are, the more valuable you become, which is why an engineer earns way more than a maid or a gas station attendant. A third way is to invent something that makes life easier or more productive, like a conveyor belt or Post-it notes. Fourth, maybe you train hard and become better than Lionel Messi! There isn't any force on earth that can force Messi and the guy cleaning his cleats to accept the same working conditions or the same pay, as long as hundreds of thousands of people are willing to trade their value just to watch Messi play—that guy is going to get paid way more for his work. In a meritocracy, there are a million ways to make it happen, which is exactly why tens of millions fled from collectivist dumps to the individualistic, capitalist West. Besides, as long as there is competition, prices will never stay the same.

Capitalism basically forces people to offer exactly what’s in demand—you satisfy others if you want to rake in those profits! It doesn't need some massive central plan or a visible hand from a bunch of bureaucrats; it’s just natural and flows right out of human nature. Honestly, there is nothing more free or beautiful than voluntary transactions—you jump into one because you expect to come out ahead. Providers are constantly hustling to convince you to voluntarily swap the value you've created for theirs, which is why we have options like Lenovo, HP, Dell, and Apple all fighting for our business. That "invisible hand" was guiding both you and me when we picked out these machines we're typing on—we checked out the options, did our homework, and then voluntarily handed over our cash for these laptops.

What kind of blue-collar worker even has the cash to hire a high-end attorney? The whole legal system is rigged so that only a select few actually understand how it works. I recently heard about a guy working within the legal system who had to pay $467 just to get an answer.

It’s that same old problem: massive bureaucracy and these insanely complicated laws we're forced to pay for, which actually end up hurting us. They just create these huge roadblocks for entrepreneurs who might have hired more people or expanded their businesses if they weren't being totally discouraged by an all-powerful government, its taxes, levies, red tape, fees, tolls, customs, and about a million other hurdles shoved in front of actual value creators.

We need to shrink it down to the smallest possible footprint so these planners can cause as little damage as possible. Doing that would also kill off clientelism—because if some local politician doesn't have the power to ban competition from the market, then the local taxi cartel has zero reason to slide an envelope to him just to protect them from Uber.

David Vaughn75 said:So what, I can just decide on my own that I’m only paying, say, two bucks in taxes this year?

Hell no. They aren't gonna let me dictate my own tax rate, goddamn them 😠

I mean, seriously, who’s actually working for whom here? Are they serving us, or are we serving them? It should be the other way around, obviously! The people should be the ones calling the shots on how these officials serve us—they work for *us*, not the other way around.

That right there is exactly where that whole leftist (though, let's be real, even some folks on the right fall for this too) delusion kicks in—where people start putting the government on a pedestal above the actual citizens.

Wait, hold up—did I just see that right? Are we seriously talking about the Detector again?! I mean, honestly, I love the enthusiasm, but let’s get real for a second—it’s like everyone wants a magic wand to solve everything! It sounds amazing on paper, sure, super high-tech and all that, but has anyone actually looked at how it works in a real-world setting here in the States? Like, if you tried to run this thing in downtown Chicago or even out in a suburb in Texas, would it even hold up? I have my doubts! Anyway, I'm totally curious though—what do you guys think? Is it legit or just a massive hype train? Let me know! kaže:

Look, when we’re talking about "state coercion," I feel like people are missing the forest for the trees—it's actually baked into the very nature of how things work! Seriously, think about it... there isn't a single boss out there—whether you're at a massive corporation like Amazon or just some local shop—who isn't using it in some way. It’s everywhere! I mean, if you’ve ever worked in a factory or even a private firm, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You've got these quotas and production plans you *have* to hit, right? And if you don't meet them? Boom—you're out the door. The company doesn't care if you'll struggle to put food on the table later or if you'll have a roof over your head come next month. They aren't exactly running a charity here! It's just the reality of the grind.

Look, here's the deal—you go out and snag yourself a different gig. You aren't some kind of indentured servant forced to grind away for one boss forever; you just hand in your notice and move on! But then? Then comes the kicker. You're basically stuck handing over whatever slice of your paycheck the government demands, because let’s be real—if you don't play ball, they'll be knocking down your door with nothing but threats and jail time waiting for you. It’s wild, right?

I mean, come on—is the difference even up for debate at this point? It’s pretty obvious, right?

Look, you can't just sign an employment contract "freely"—I mean, really think about it! The second you ink that deal, you aren't exactly being a free agent anymore—you're basically handing over your autonomy to someone else! It’s kind of a wild concept when you break it down like that, right? One minute you're out there doing your own thing, and the next—boom—you've handed the reins over to a boss!

Hell no! I mean, seriously—if you're dim enough to actually sign away your rights like that, maybe you don't give a damn about being free? Not me!
I can't believe I actually saw that! Seriously—like, my jaw was on the floor. It’s one thing to hear rumors floating around the internet, but seeing it play out right in front of you? Totally different vibe altogether. Honestly, it was wilder than any movie I've seen lately!

Look, let’s be real for a second—this whole idea of "absolute freedom" that those liberal theorists love to preach about? It’s a total myth. Honestly, it feels like such a reach! When you actually dig into how liberalism defines "freedom," it isn't even about the actual liberty of the individual—it's just a fancy way of talking about protecting private property rights. Like, seriously?! It's all wrapped up in protecting what people own rather than making sure everyone actually has the agency to live their lives. In their version of the world, freedom isn't equal at all—some people end up with a massive amount of it while everyone else is left fighting for scraps. It's definitely not the level playing field they claim it to be!

So, here’s the thing—if we’re all supposed to be equal under the law and have these guaranteed rights like freedom of speech, how does it even work when some people seem to get a free pass to say whatever they want while others get shut down? Like, how can one person's speech be totally fine, but someone else gets canceled or silenced for saying something similar? It feels like there's a massive gap between what's written in the Constitution and how things actually play out in the real world!

goldenpuma84 said:Look, you're seeing things in black and white. The real world has a lot more shades to it...

The whole labor versus capital struggle defined the 19th and 20th centuries, and now crimsonwolf20 is just looking around at the world today like... what even is this? I don't get it. I just can't accept it...

It’s that classic move where some corporate shark grabs a massive stake in a major firm under shady circumstances, then starts bleeding that company dry just to plug holes in his other businesses... He stops paying the suppliers and guts the core strength of a solid brand with a huge presence across America, all while buying up luxury real estate and high-end cars. Eventually, you go from cutting transit benefits and meal allowances straight down to him not even paying people their wages...

Drop the ideological nonsense...

Historically speaking, the left started out fighting for workers while the right fought for capital. At first, they both wanted radical fixes like getting rid of private property entirely, but eventually, they just settled for working within the capitalist system...

When you produce a cake, you have to slice it up. That’s where the whole labor vs. capital conflict kicks in... right when you're dividing the pie...

You're totally missing my point...

The leftists just have too much free time on their hands. It’s not exactly hard work... It really comes down to how someone chooses to spend that time and what they actually value. Whether they want to live alone or start a family, if they believe in God or not, or if they think being American is defined by birth and culture... basically, whether they want an open society where you define your own good, or a closed one where the government does it for you...

That’s the real line between the right and the left. It isn't just about obsessing over the bottom line in every single scenario...

I doubt you’ll get this, but by those actual standards, the Nazi Party was a right-wing party. Purely right-wing.

Either way, your take is pretty avant-garde. Maybe you should write a paper claiming Hitler was actually a leftist and send it over to a political science institute in Germany. Who knows, maybe your theory uncovers some hidden peak of historical thought we haven't seen yet...

It’s also pretty obvious how obsessed you are with Marx. You view everything through an economic lens, like money is the only thing that matters and everything else is secondary. For me, it's about spirit and ideas; the economics are just extra. You don't even realize it, but you sound so Marxist. Just freaking Marxist.

The thing is, what you despise so much about Marx is actually just your own reflection. Like any mirror image, just slightly flipped...

Hold up—first you’re claiming economic repression doesn't matter to totalitarian regimes, and then when someone points out it’s actually the single most important tool for controlling society, suddenly they’re "obsessed with economics"? 🤣 Honestly, I’d say your view is what’s shallow and lacking nuance! How else do you explain someone arguing that managing the economy is some insignificant detail? This is absurd on an epic scale.

Economics is basically just a massive web of transactions where people swap value for value. It’s easily the most sophisticated system of human interaction ever—we're talking hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of rational people with their own needs, wants, preferences, skills, intelligence, and hard work—all exchanging that stuff with other people who are also driven by rational interests and contributing based on their own abilities. And look, Ekonomja isn't just "capital," nor is it some imaginary battle between "labor and capital" that collectivists from here to Venezuela love to chant like a mantra. Economics is everything! It's the food on your table, the roof over your head, your clothes, your shoes, your washing machine, even a thumb drive or your free time—it even reaches down to the well-being of your kids and everything that makes life easier or harder. At its core, it's the most vital thing in anyone's life; it's the line between a prosperous, comfortable life and worrying if your kids will go hungry tonight. Anyone who controls that holds the reins to the most important aspects of human existence. Calling that kind of control a "minor detail" or dismissing economic repression as "vulgar economizing" is just straight-up stupidity. I mean, seriously, do you think the economy was so irrelevant to the Nazis that their war industry just fell from the sky? No one had to pay for it through labor or capital, right? And don't even get me started on those old slogans about "God, Country, and Nation"—in your little fantasy world, I guess Mao and Stalin weren't nationalists because, hey, they were leftists. Talk about a black and white world.

And because of that control via central planning and repression, the whole point of the Left isn't "free time" or "advocating for workers"—those are just mantras for the naive. The actual essence of the Left is precisely the control of society through the forceful management of people and their preferences.

Without that control and the forced management of people and property, there is no "Left." By that logic, the National Socialist German Workers' Party was pure economic Leftism, just like the Nazis themselves claimed and as their own platform proves. Sure, they were racists and nationalists, but we have plenty of examples of leftist racists and nationalists—just look at communist China or the USSR.

So again, if things like nationalizing industry, state monopolies on healthcare, education, and pensions, a state-controlled central bank, government manipulation of prices, state interference in voluntary market relations, state-mandated wages, and production quotas set by planners are all considered "Right-wing"... then what on earth is the Left supposed to be, for God's sake? 🤷

David Vaughn75 said:Germany's economy absolutely took off once the Nazi Party grabbed control.

🤣

And we all know exactly how that little experiment ended 👍

goldenpuma84 said:There are actually two different axes you can use to map political parties from left to right, though the lines always get a bit blurry...

The first is the relationship between labor and capital, and the second is how they view tradition—basically, freedom versus authority and national identity.

On that first axis, the Nazi Party believed true individual value couldn't be found in a capitalist system driven by pure profit, since that's all just selfish interests. In reality, though, the big German capitalists were huge supporters of the Nazi Party because they saw them as a shield against Bolshevism. The Nazi Party never actually tried to nationalize industries or cut into profits; instead, the capitalists just used the German war machine to line their own pockets.

True value, in their eyes, came from devotion to the Fatherland, through sacrifice, unity, and shedding blood—both yours and others'. Real value meant sacrificing personal freedoms to defend a homeland that dictates everything. The individual is nothing; the State decides everything from what you wear to who you marry.

That kind of sacrifice has zero to do with the socialist mantra of messy government seizure and redistribution of wealth—which seems to be what bothers you, even though a true Nazi would see that as trivial and insignificant.

These values aren't leftist at all; they're purely right-wing. God, family, and Country—those are the three core pillars pushed to the extreme in the Nazi system. That’s why they’re right-wing.

But I guess for you, the economic sphere and the liberties attached to it are everything... for them, it was completely irrelevant.

Wait, whose theory even is this? Seriously! Look, work itself isn't some holy end goal—it’s just how you create value. You do the job, you produce something useful, and then someone else is willing to pay you for that output. At the end of the day, capital is nothing more than a tool—just a means to an end to help you buy the value you've actually created. Honestly, the whole "labor theory of value" thing was laughed out of serious economic circles ages ago!

I honestly don't get where people are pulling these assumptions from—this whole "clash between labor and capital" nonsense just doesn't have any real-world basis! It’s like they're reading from a textbook that hasn't been updated since the Great Depression or something. Seriously, if you actually look at how the economy functions today, this idea of a constant, fundamental war between workers and big business is just... well, it's totally disconnected from reality. It's all just theory and zero substance!
Quincy:

So, looking back at that first point—it’s pretty wild how much the Nazi Party talked a big game about how you can't find true individual value in a capitalist system driven by nothing but greed and selfish interests. They acted like they were totally against the whole profit-chasing thing, right? But honestly, if you look at what was actually happening on the ground, it was a complete contradiction! The biggest German capitalists—I mean, the massive industrial giants over there—were actually some of the most vocal supporters of the Nazi Party. Why? Because they saw them as this ultimate shield against Bolshevism. It wasn't some ideological crusade for them; it was pure survival and power. And get this—the Nazi Party never actually moved to nationalize industries or touch anyone's profit margins. Not once! Instead, the capitalists basically just hijacked the entire German war machine to line their own pockets. It was less about "national greatness" and more about using the state to fuel massive private wealth. Talk about a hustle!

What are you even talking about?! Seriously—if you look at their actual names, their policies, and their whole damn platform, the Nazi Party are socialists through and through!
So, I was just deep-diving into this Wikipedia entry about the National Socialist Program—you know, that whole heavy topic—and man, it really makes you think about how much history repeats itself if we aren't careful! It’s wild how they laid everything out so systematically back then. I was actually reading some comments from earlier, and I kind of see where Bradley Sanders4 was coming from regarding the economic shifts, though I have to say, I think he's being a bit too optimistic about how those policies actually played out on the ground. And hey, vividfox9, I saw your point about the social restructuring aspect—totally agree that it wasn't just about money, it was about total control of the lifestyle. It’s honestly pretty intense when you look at the sheer scale of what the Nazi Party tried to implement. It wasn't just a few laws; it was like they wanted to rewire the entire concept of society. It reminds me a bit of those massive corporate takeovers we see in the US sometimes—where one entity just tries to swallow up every single aspect of life until there's nothing left of the old way. Super crazy stuff! Anyway, just my two cents while I'm down this rabbit hole!

Quincy:

Real value only comes when you're all-in for the Fatherland—we're talking total devotion, sacrifice, and that sense of unity that only comes from shared struggle and blood spilled for the cause! Honestly, the true way to live is by laying down those individual liberties on the altar of the nation, because let’s be real: the State is everything. The individual is basically nothing in the grand scheme of things—the State calls the shots on everything from what you wear to who you're allowed to marry! Look, this whole victim narrative doesn't have anything to do with that tired old socialist mantra about the government being some big, shady machine that just steals and redistributes wealth—you know, that stuff that seems to bug you so much? Honestly, any true follower of the Nazi Party would just see that kind of talk as totally trivial and insignificant!

Look, the whole thing about how a regime stays in power boils-down to one simple thing—they grab all this massive authority just so they can muscle their way around people and property. Take the Nazi Party, for example—they basically ran the entire show! We're talking about them having total control over the monetary system, the private markets, and the economy at large—all because they were handed these insane levels of power. You couldn't even dream of setting up a system like that without the state having those wild, unchecked powers to boss people and assets around just to fit whatever central plan some party planners cooked up in a room somewhere. It’s all about that central control, really!
Quincy:

Man, let me tell you—those values aren't even remotely leftist! Not by a long shot!

Man, these values are basically just the textbook definition of the political Left. We're talking about an all-powerful government that tries to micromanage people and their property based on some central plan cooked up by planners who hold a total monopoly on force. It’s the Left through and through—they want to run everything head-first and heel-first!

Look, they already took right-wing stuff—like God, family, and the Homeland—and pushed them way past the breaking point in that whole Nazi Party system. That’s why the Nazis were right-wingers in the first place.

The government basically runs the whole show—money, banks, the economy, pricing, schools, healthcare, pensions—they grab it all by the horns, just like the leftists want. And we're talking the socialist left, which is pretty much exactly what it says on the tin!

Oh, obviously, you think the economic side and all those freedoms tied to it are the main thing, whereas for them, it doesn't even matter.

Well, duh, of course it matters! Because without total control over everything being created and the people creating it—all through some crazy repressive government machine—you wouldn't even have Nazi-style totalitarianism. Economics is the absolute backbone here, especially when you factor in the state having the power to enforce their big "central plan," which usually involves crushing any other freedoms those socialist planners dream up just to hit their social goals.

vividfox9 said:The last far-right worker's party to leave such a devastating mark on history was the Nazi Party...

Wait, so you're calling them right-wing *and* socialists? lol—does that mean the socialists over in the USSR were also considered "right-wing" too?

Hey crimsonwolf20,

You’ve picked up an Infraction here on Reddit.

Reason: Trolling
-------
-------
-------

This Infraction is worth 35 point(s), and just a heads-up—it might mean some restricted access until it clears out. And yeah, the really serious ones? Those stick around forever.

Original Post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/...
Quote:

Quote: fortinbras said:Check out this post
If they actually bothered to read, they’d see right under the Definition of communism:
This little Titoist/Judas type claims: "It doesn't say anywhere that the state has to own the means of production." — Well, you don't agree with him, nor does actual communist theory, nor do the definitions of communism we've pinned here, so honestly, you're both just socialists. Go figure!

It would be great if you guys could actually get on the same page, but hey, we all know how revolutions work—they eventually end up eating their own children because of all the bickering between former comrades and communist ideologues. It's basically perfect breeding ground for sociopaths and social engineers, which attracts the absolute worst kinds of people to society—just look at those socialist leaders from Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler to Robert Mugabe, all the way down to Hugo Chávez and today's modern socialist megalomaniacs. The gulags were practically overflowing with former "comrades," even though they were all supposedly "communists."

But honestly, there is so much nonsense and flawed logic baked into every single flavor of socialist thought that it almost doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Every single version can't handle even the tiniest bit of surface-level criticism; the whole thing just falls apart the moment you scratch beneath the surface. No amount of mental gymnastics can save it once it's exposed for what it truly is—because the core of every socialism is coercion. Without force, your whole utopian daydreaming just wouldn't exist.

Looking at your links, we see:

Quote:
..theory advocating elimination of private property
...a system in which goods are owned in common
...an ideology based on abolishing private property and establishing collective ownership of the means of production...
...all property is owned by the community.....
...methods of production are owned and controlled by all its members.....
....socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production .....
....to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control.....
So, bottom line: the state owns the production, private property is either banned or strictly limited, and the goal is a classless society WITHOUT a state. So, let me say it again: it's moving through totalitarianism to reach a stateless society. (And please, don't try to sell me those empty talking points used by modern socialists who are too embarrassed by their own ideology's past; they try to insist it's about "social," "communal," or "collective" ownership instead of "state" ownership, but it all boils down to the state anyway.)

Come on, explain a few things to me, since these communists before you either won't or simply don't know how.

1. I don't want to hand over my shop's keys to your Party, so how exactly are you going to force me?
2. If there's "social ownership" over my restaurant, who gets to decide how much flour, sugar, dish soap, meat, fish, fruit, or veggies I need to order? And who decides the price of a veggie pie or a steak with mashed potatoes?
3. If you're pushing for a "classless" society and equality, what logical principle—consistent with your own ideology, mind you—is going to be used to pay a doctor more than a janitor? Or, logically speaking, is LeBron James going to make more than the world's top neurosurgeon? Or will he not? How would that even work if you were actually being consistent with the idea of a classless society?

All the best,
Reddit

------------------------------------
How much more of this? What exactly is considered trolling here?

So, how do you actually file a complaint against a mod like Klonka? I’m putting it right here because I can't exactly hit up the ban forum—since, you know, I haven't been banned yet—and I honestly don't see any other place to air this out. Seriously, her behavior has become totally nonsensical at this point—it's like, whenever she runs out of actual arguments, she just resorts to brute force to shut everyone down!

Hey there, crimsonwolf20!

You just caught an Infraction over on Reddit!

Reason: Just trolling.
-------
Man, this happens every single time—trying to claim fascism and communism are exactly the same thing just gets you slapped with a ban. It’s like a universal rule around here!

Since you're stuck in ban-land anyway, maybe use the downtime to actually educate yourself on what fascism really is!
-------

This Infraction is worth 35 points—and just a heads-up, it could mean your access gets restricted until it runs out. Heads up though: serious Infractions stay on your record forever!

Original Post:
I was just scrolling through Reddit and stumbled upon this absolute gem of a thread—you guys seriously need to see this! It’s one of those deep dives that just makes you stop and think, you know? Anyway, I wanted to bring the conversation over here because the energy in that thread was just unreal! So, basically, there’s this massive debate going on about political theory and how we define certain ideologies. People are getting super heated—in a good way!—about everything from the basic Definition of communism to how much influence figures like Marx or even someone like Joseph Stalin had on modern governance. It’s wild how much people still care about these old-school debates! One guy was going off about Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard, trying to bridge the gap between classical liberalism and more radical libertarian ideas. He was even throwing in some Robert Nozick for good measure! It felt like a mini-seminar held in a dive bar—super smart but totally unhinged at the same time. And man, the rebuttals! Someone brought up Frédéric Bastiat to counter an argument about free markets, and honestly? It was pretty brilliant. But then, things got spicy. You had people bringing up the darker side of history—talking about Robespierre or even comparing certain modern leaders to Hugo Chávez or Robert Mugabe. It gets dark fast when you start talking about the potential for a gulag or the sheer chaos of someone like Benito Mussolini. It’s heavy stuff, for sure, but it really makes you look at how power works in America today. The best part, though, was watching people try to use Merriam-Webster definitions to win arguments about political philosophy. Like, come on! We all know that sometimes a dictionary definition just doesn't cut it when you're debating the merits of an economic system! Anyway, I thought this was too interesting to keep to myself. What do you all think? Are we seeing any echoes of these old ideologies playing out in US politics right now, or are we moving into something entirely new? Let's get into it!

I honestly wish she’d just go out and educate herself a bit on how different social orders actually function—like, seriously! She really needs to dive into some actual philosophy and pick up the works of guys like Mises Institute, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, or even Reisman. It would make such a huge difference!

So, I was just diving deep into some classic reading over at the Mises Institute—you know how I get when I find a rabbit hole worth falling down!—and I stumbled upon this absolute gem of an essay about why Nazism isn't actually "totalitarian" in the way most people think. It’s such a wild, mind-bending read that totally flips the script on how we usually talk about political systems. Basically, the argument goes that if you look at the actual mechanics of how power works, Nazism doesn't fit that strict, textbook definition of totalitarianism because it didn't aim for total control over every single tiny aspect of private life through a centralized bureaucracy. Instead, it was more about this chaotic, overlapping mess of competing authorities—kind of like a massive, dysfunctional corporate merger gone wrong, but with much scarier consequences! It’s super fascinating because it challenges the standard way we categorize these regimes. Most folks just throw around big labels like "totalitarian" for anything scary, but this piece argues that true totalitarianism requires a level of systematic, organized state dominance that just wasn't the core driver here. It's all about that tension between the party and the existing structures of power. Honestly, it makes you rethink everything you thought you knew about 20th-century history! Definitely worth a click if you want to have your brain scrambled a little bit.
I was just scrolling through my Goodreads shelves and stumbled upon my "Classical Liberalism" collection—it’s kind of a deep rabbit hole once you start digging! Honestly, if you’re into political philosophy, this is where the real good stuff lives. It’s basically the foundation for everything we talk about regarding individual rights and limited government. I’ve been revisiting some of the heavy hitters lately, and man, it really makes you rethink how much power we actually let institutions hold over our daily lives. If you haven't started building your own reading list around these ideas yet, you are seriously missing out!

The Definition of communism
a way of organizing a society in which a... I can't believe we're even having this conversation again—it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes! Seriously though, when you actually look at how much the government tries to stick its nose into everything, it’s honestly wild. You see people out there acting like every little regulation is some kind of necessity, but if you dig just an inch deeper, it's usually just more red tape slowing everyone down. It's pretty much exactly what the old school thinkers warned us about—you know, the guys who actually understood how freedom works! It's just crazy how many people don't realize that once you start giving away those little bits of liberty here and there, pretty soon you've got nothing left. I mean, come on! We should be pushing for way less interference and way more individual responsibility. It's not that complicated, right? Just stay out of our way and let us handle our own business!t So, we're talking about being ruled by a dictator now? Man, that is a heavy topic to dive into! It’s one of those things that sounds like something straight out of a history textbook or a dystopian movie, but when you really start peeling back the layers, it gets pretty intense. Just thinking about the whole concept—where one person basically holds all the cards and calls all the shots without anyone being able to say "hey, hold up a second"—it’s wild to imagine how that actually plays out in a modern society. Like, what does that even look like in practice today versus back in the day? There's so much to unpack there! cIt basically controls every single aspect of people's lives! And that’s the part where you aren't even allowed to push back against the government—you know, where having a different opinion is basically a crime!
: very Look, we really need to talk about this whole "harsh control" thing—it’s honestly such a massive red flag! — whenever you see an authority figure or some government agency starting to tighten the screws like that, my internal alarm bells start screaming. It's just... ugh, it feels so suffocating, right? I was thinking about it earlier, and it reminds me of those classic debates you see on Reddit where people argue about how much power a state should actually have. If you push too hard with that kind of heavy-handed oversight, you aren't just "maintaining order"—you're basically stripping away everything that makes a free society work. It’s like, once you let that genie out of the bottle, there's no going back! It brings to mind everything those old-school thinkers warned us about—you know, the guys like Friedrich Hayek or even Murray Rothbard who were constantly pointing out how easily authority can morph into something way more sinister. When control becomes "harsh," it stops being about protection and starts being about pure, unadulterual dominance. It’s super sketchy! Anyway, I just feel like we need to stay vigilant about this. Once the rules stop being about keeping things running smoothly and start being about squeezing every bit of autonomy out of the individual, we've officially crossed a line. Just my two cents! ✌️
So, I was just digging through the dictionary—shoutout to Merriam-Webster—and I stumbled upon this specific entry for fascism. It’s defined basically as a political philosophy, a whole movement, or even a full-blown regime (think back to those Fascisti days) that essentially puts the nation and, all too often, race on a pedestal above everything else. Just a little bit of trivia for your Tuesday! So, let's talk about this whole "above the individual" thing—it’s such a massive, loaded concept, right? Honestly, I feel like people get so caught up in the grander scale of things that they completely lose sight of the actual person standing right in front of them! It’s wild how often we fall into that trap where we start prioritizing some abstract "greater good" or a massive collective entity over the basic rights and dignity of a single human being. I mean, think about it—when you start treating society or the state as this supreme, untouchable force that sits above everyone else, you're basically opening the door to all sorts of nonsense. It's like—wait, I remember reading somewhere about how this mindset can lead straight to the kind of stuff we see in history books involving guys like Joseph Stalin or even Hugo Chávez. Once you decide that the "collective" matters more than the person, things can go south *really* fast. Like, super fast. It's almost like we're ignoring what thinkers like Friedrich Hayek or Murray Rothbard were trying to hammer home—that the individual is the fundamental building block. You can't just stack up "society" on top of people and expect it to work if you've crushed the individuals making up that society in the first place! It’s totally counterproductive! Anyway, I'm curious what you guys think—is there actually such a thing as a legitimate interest that exists "above" us, or is that just a convenient excuse used by people in power to push their agendas? Let's get into it! And that just goes to show what we're dealing with here! — honestly, it’s pretty wild when you think about it. So, let's talk about centralized, autocratic governments—because honestly, where do we even start with that mess? It’s basically just one massive power grab by a single entity at the top, right? You’ve got all the decision-making concentrated in one spot, usually held by a single leader or a tiny, elite group that calls all the shots without having to answer to anyone else. No checks, no balances, just straight-up control. It’s like if you were playing a team sport, but instead of a coach making tactical calls based on what’s happening on the field, there's this one guy in a locked room who decides everything regardless of whether it actually makes sense for the players. It’s super rigid, super top-down, and—let’s be real—it almost always leads to some pretty massive inefficiencies because the people at the top are totally disconnected from what's actually going on on the ground. Plus, once you give one person that much unchecked authority, things can go south incredibly fast. It’s a recipe for disaster, seriously!t run by some kind of dictator, Man, we are talking about some seriously heavy stuff here—total economic and social regimentation. It’s that kind of suffocating, top-down control where every single aspect of life is micromanaged by the powers that be. We aren't just talking about simple rules; we're talking about a system designed to squeeze the life out of individual agency until everything moves in lockstep with the state's agenda. It’s intense!...and then you've got the whole mess of forcibly suppressing anyone who dares to disagree!
So, I was just hanging out on Merriam-Webster looking up the official Definition of fascism—because, honestly, everyone uses that word lately like they're throwing around salt—and it really got me thinking! It’s wild how much weight this one term carries in our political discourse these days. It's funny, isn't it? You see people shouting it on every street corner or typing it in all caps on Reddit, but when you actually sit down and look at the linguistic roots, there's so much nuance we totally miss. It’s not just a "bad word" we toss at anyone we disagree with—it’s a specific, heavy-duty ideological framework. Anyway, I'm curious what you guys think! Are we actually seeing the hallmarks of it in modern American politics, or have we just turned a very serious historical concept into a generic insult for "anyone who wants more regulation"? Let's get into it!

Definition of communism
A way of organizing a society in which... So, I was just thinking—like, really sitting here and chewing on this—about how much people think "the government owns" everything. It’s wild, right? Honestly, it feels like every time you turn around, some bureaucrat is trying to stick their nose into something they have no business touching! I mean, look at the way things are heading. You've got these massive institutions acting like they own the whole damn playground. It reminds me of those old economic debates where guys like Friedrich Hayek or even Murray Rothbard would go absolutely ballistic over the exact same thing—the idea that once you start letting the state grab a piece of the pie, they never, ever stop grabbing. They just keep reaching! It’s almost like watching a slow-motion version of what happened under Hugo Chávez, where suddenly the state decides it's the boss of everything you hold dear. And don't even get me started on the sheer audacity of it all! People act like it's totally normal for the government to step in and claim ownership over sectors that should be left to the people. Like, hello? Have we learned nothing from history? From the absolute chaos of Robespierre to the total nightmares under Joseph Stalin? Seriously though, it’s such a trip to see how differently everyone views this. Some folks are totally fine with it, while others are basically ready to go full libertarian on anyone who mentions a tax hike. But man, when you start looking at the actual definition of communism versus what we're seeing play out in certain policy shifts today... it gets pretty spooky, if you ask me! Anyway, just my two cents—probably just rambling now, but I couldn't help myself! What do you guys think? Are we sliding toward total state control, or am I just being overly dramatic? (Probably both!) So, basically, we’re talking about the whole kit and caboodle—everything you need to actually build stuff and move it around from point A to point B. I'm talking the big essentials like land, oil, massive factories, shipping fleets, all that good stuff. And the kicker? There isn't a single scrap of private property to be found! Everything is just... out there.
: a Totalitarianism—it’s that heavy-duty, all-consuming system of government where one single authoritarian party basically pulls all the strings. We're talking about a setup where the state doesn't just want to rule you; it wants to own the whole damn vibe. It’s not just about having a leader in charge; it’s about that one party exerting total control over pretty much every aspect of public and private life. Think massive surveillance, zero room for dissent, and the government basically acting like it owns your thoughts, too. It's intense, it's overwhelming, and honestly, it's the ultimate nightmare scenario for anyone who values freedom! So, let's talk about "state-owned means of production"—that whole heavy concept everyone loves to throw around during political debates! It’s one of those terms that sounds super intense, right? Basically, we're talking about the government stepping in to own and run the big stuff—the factories, the infrastructure, the energy grids, all that gear used to actually make things happen in an economy. Instead of having private companies like Ford or Amazon running the show, you've got the federal government holding the keys to everything. It’s a massive shift in how a country functions! Some people argue it’s the only way to ensure everyone gets a fair shake and that resources aren't just hoarded by billionaires, while others—the folks who lean more toward guys like Murray Rothbard or Friedrich Hayek—would probably have a total meltdown thinking about it! They’d argue that once the state takes control of the tools used to build society, you lose that spark of innovation and competition that keeps things moving forward. It really comes down to whether you trust a centralized bureaucracy to manage complex industries better than the free market does. It's a wild debate, honestly—super polarizing, but man, it always makes for a fascinating conversation!
So, I was just hanging out browsing Merriam-Webster—you know, when you're deep in a rabbit hole—and I stumbled upon their Definition of communism. It really got me thinking! It’s one of those terms that everyone throws around in political arguments like they actually know what it means, but when you look at the formal breakdown, it’s a whole different ballgame. It definitely makes you want to dive deeper into all those old-school theories from guys like Marx and see how much of the modern chatter actually holds water!

From a liberal perspective, these two ideologies are basically twins—I mean, they’re practically identical! And honestly, it’s not even surprising when you realize they both crawled out of that same collectivist void, sucking all their inspiration from Robespierre’s pamphlets and Marx’s manifesto. You could almost swap their definitions around and nobody would even notice a difference! Is Merriam-Webster just trolling us at this point? Or maybe every single liberal philosopher and political thinker from Frédéric Bastiat onward is just being trolled by the followers of these ideologies because they can't handle anyone who disagrees with them?

Look, we have to face some pretty uncomfortable truths here—they were targeting the exact same voter base! If you actually look at it, the state plays almost the identical role in society under both systems. In both cases, collective interests take priority over individual freedoms, the economy is kept under the thumb of the government and the ruling party, and the state wields these absolutely wild, unchecked powers to control society. Plus, centralized power remains unquestionable in both scenarios. These aren't just side notes; they are the actual foundations—the core features—of both ideologies. And let’s not forget the history lessons! Adolf Hitler led a socialist workers' party, and the guy who created fascism, Benito Mussolini, was an editor for a major socialist newspaper and a hardcore socialist himself. He actually got kicked out of the socialist party because he was pushing for socialism that only benefited his own specific group instead of the "proletariat of all nations" like his colleagues wanted. In other words, he wanted national socialism instead of international socialism—but honestly? Those differences are incredibly shallow and superficial. The underlying ideas that fuel both ideologies remain virtually identical. He basically just rebranded his version of socialism as "fascism"—which, if you want to get technical with the Latin, is just a fancy way of describing a bunch of woodcutters that are too hard to break apart as a group!

I’m calling on the admins here to please take a second look at Klonka and those bans she’s handing out just for stating plain old facts! I’ve tried arguing my point and proving her wrong a million times, but apparently, when she gets frustrated or runs out of knowledge, she just resorts to warnings because I dared to compare two almost identical statist ideologies. Look, if you want to push back, do it with actual arguments—not by using brute force and abusing your authority (which is pretty ironic given the subject matter here, don't you think?).

Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state - Benito Mussolini.
"What I can directly promise you is that in the Independent State of America, as long as we are here, capitalists will no longer exploit the worker. Capital will exist, but it will serve the worker. Rest assured, this will also apply to all those other capitalists who are not Jewish." - Ante Pavelić
The truth is that man is small in the face of freedom - Benito Mussolinii
A defining feature of fascist doctrine is the concept of the State... For a fascist, the State is absolute; individuals and groups of individuals are merely relative. - Benito Mussolini
"We are socialists, enemies of today's capitalist economic system which exploits the economically weak with unfair wages, with an inadequate valuation of human beings based on wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all ready to destroy this system at any cost." - Adolf Hitler
"This war divides the world into two halves: England and France in the capitalist camp, and Germany and the USSR in the socialist camp." - Joseph Stalin, Speech at the Frunze Academy, November 1940.

Honestly, pointing out the similarities between the core features of socialism/communism and national socialism/fascism is a totally legitimate question to ask. Coming to the conclusion that they are basically the same ideology, save for a few surface-level differences, is a logical stance that—in my opinion—is more than obvious. And hey, I'm totally down to defend that through debate and discourse if necessary! Is this really considered "trolling" when it's perfectly on-topic? Isn't this supposed to be a forum for ideas and discussion, rather than a place where a moderator violently shuts down speech just because they're feeling frustrated?

In my view, this moderator is being way too emotional, isn't educated enough on the subject, is biased, and reaches for the ban hammer far too easily whenever she lacks the actual arguments to defend her own views.
Cheers.

Bradley Sanders4 said:I guess you’d think it would be totally normal if they were flying the flag of the Republic of Mexican Appalachia at the right department over in Mexico, wouldn't you?☕

Look, let them wave whatever flags they want! I mean—seriously—look at what's happening: followers of Vojislav Šešelj are basically steamrolling elections while some "anti-fascist" general like Draža is being treated like a national hero... so what? It's all just part of the show!

crimsonwolf21 said:There isn't a single one of them like that. They're all just drunk on power and couldn't care less about anything else. All they care about is how much they can squeeze out of the system while they've still got the mandate—everything else? To hell with it. Seriously, haven't we learned anything yet? It's pathetic.

I think this might be the first time I actually agree with you—you hit the nail right on the head regarding the core issue. The real problem is that when you're running an entire machine fueled by other people's money, nepotism and corruption become almost inevitable—I mean, at the end of the day, it's still just humans running the show. There’s zero accountability because they’ve got a four-year cushion, so they just burn through capital and pile debt onto our kids just so they can live large and fund that massive, bloated, inefficient bureaucracy.

Politics is basically just a bunch of careerists masquerading as public servants while they chase their own selfish interests. But Americans? We still act like the government is some kind of overprotective mother who needs to coddle us, babysit us, and hold our hands forever—even though the state doesn't have a single cent that wasn't already snatched away from the people actually creating real value! God forbid we actually strip those parasites of their power or shut down the massive tap of taxpayer money flowing into their pockets. If you even suggest something like that, suddenly you're some "evil liberal" who wants the Wild West. We have such a deep-seated statist mentality here, and honestly, looking at the political landscape today, any rational person should probably just despise politics altogether.

7 minute miracle
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt92-ZDm-HM

Now THIS is how you do it when the private sector takes the wheel—fast, high-quality, and actually efficient, without all those bloated, taxpayer-funded bureaucrats dragging everything down 👍

Just look at the difference compared to this socialist model we’re stuck funding whether we actually use the service or not. Total night and day!

nimblemarlin6 said:Quincy:

I honestly don't see why people get so worked up about this—it’s just a watch. A timepiece. It does exactly what it’s supposed to do, which is tell you that you’re late for your meeting or that you actually have five minutes to spare before the next thing hits the fan. People treat these things like they're some kind of spiritual anchor or a personality trait—as if wearing a specific movement somehow changes your fundamental essence—but let's be real. It’s just gears and springs. It’s fine. It’s all perfectly fine. Benjamin Taylor6 says: Look, if people decide to collectively agree to strip away someone else's freedom—well, it’s all for nothing. It doesn't work that way. Neither the individuals nor the government actually holds that right to begin with. That's the whole point here—the government's authority is inherently limited. They aren't allowed to just pass laws that strip an individual of their liberty. That's the core issue. Limited government powers. Period.

And just how much should the government be allowed to meddle—who actually gets to call the shots on where that line is drawn?
So, how would I actually pull off the transition from a state with massive, overreaching authority to one where the government stays out of your hair—the kind of limited setup that actually makes sense to me? It’s a tricky one. Personally, I find the whole democratic process to be a bit of a wash—honestly, it feels pretty pointless when you consider that most voters are just indoctrinated sheep or, frankly, just plain clueless—but then you look at the libertarians and they aren't exactly forcing anyone to adopt their worldview either. So, if the ballot box is a dead end and the activists won't push, how do you actually get there? How would I execute that shift?
What is it with you and this obsession with "infringing on freedoms"? To anyone else, things like paying taxes or having access to public healthcare, schools, and a police force are just... normal. They're standard parts of a functioning society. But based on your usual posts—where you constantly link everything back to collectivist madness, socialism, and mass executions—it’s like you view a tax bill or a local clinic as being on the exact same level as sending people off to the Gulag. And honestly? It just isn't.

Quincy:

It’s all essentially the same thing—when people start shouting about wanting a "strong state" to crush civil liberties, or a "strong state" to trample economic freedoms, or even a "strong state" to stomp all over Jewish freedoms—it’s just different ways of saying the exact same thing.

No, those aren't even in the same universe. Look, we’ve already touched on this—to you, being taxed on the same scale is somehow comparable to passing laws that classify Jews as a lower race and force them to wear identifying marks. You're putting business regulations on the exact same level as the mass deportation of Jews to concentration camps. It’s completely deranged. Human life carries more weight than corporate profit—period.

Quincy:

My freedom to wave my fist around ends right where your head begins—and honestly, that logic should apply to the state as well. Or at least, it *should*—but we all know what happens when collective madness takes over, grabs a monopoly on force, and starts looking down its nose at individual liberty...

It’s true—this whole "collectivist madness" thing, where you have a monopoly on force paired with a total disregard for individual liberty, always leads to ugly outcomes. The only real question here is what exactly you define as collectivist madness.
Look, paying your taxes, supporting public goods, and living in a regulated economy—that isn't some kind of collectivist madness. But shoving Jews into camps? Yeah, that’s definitely where you draw the line.

I mean, look at the constitution—it’s basically the ultimate rulebook for any nation, right? If a country is actually designed to be a liberal society—you know, one that genuinely respects individual liberties and puts a leash on its own power so it isn't constantly poking its nose into your daily business—then that philosophy has to be baked right into the constitution itself. Sure, there’s plenty of room for democracy, but you can't have "democratic voting" being used as an excuse to strip away fundamental freedoms that are already guaranteed! Just take a close look at the US Constitution—every single time it says, "Congress shall make no law..." that's exactly the kind of boundary we're talking about.

Honestly, I could totally flip that question back on you! In your little socialist utopia, who exactly gets to pull the strings and decide what those state powers actually look like?

So, let’s say you’re looking at how to actually pull off a massive pivot—moving from a government that basically has its hands in everyone's pockets to one that stays way out of your business—how would you even tackle that? It's a huge question! I mean, if you're like me and you think the whole democratic process is kind of a wash because most voters are just being led around like sheep by whatever propaganda they're fed, and you also feel like libertarians are too "live and let live" to actually force any real change... then what's the move? How do you actually execute that transition without everything just falling apart? I'm curious how someone would even start building that kind of shift!

Market reforms and deregulating the bureaucracy—it’s gotta be a slow burn, you know? One step at a time. But honestly, who actually said voters are all just mindless drones? There are indoctrinated sheep everywhere—I mean, let's be real, even I’ve been an indoctrinated sheep and a total idiot from time to time! 😁 Look, I've got zero interest in playing boss over anyone else or messing with their money—that’s just not my vibe. But honestly? Some of our little indoctrinated sheep around here seem like they're absolutely dying to do exactly that!

Man, what’s not a loss of freedom to you is just "business as usual" to someone else—it’s wild how differently we all see this stuff!

Spot on—to some people, nationalization and just snatching away private property feels like totally normal, everyday business. But let’s be real here: common sense tells us that isn't normal, and it definitely shouldn't be! It’s nothing more than straight-up armed robbery. That’s exactly why we bake human rights and individual freedoms directly into the law. That whole legal framework is the core of what we liberals are always preaching about!

And I’m talking about the big stuff here—you know, things like taxes, public healthcare, the school system, and even the police—all those topics you constantly link back to that whole collective madness, socialism, and mass executions in your posts!

Look, I’m all for paying my fair share, but only if that money actually goes toward the stuff the government is supposed to be doing in the first place! I am totally down to set aside a chunk of my own hard-earned cash for the essentials—you know, the basics like the justice system, the police, and national defense. That's what keeps the lights on and the streets safe. But as for everything else? No thanks. I’m definitely not interested in funding massive wealth redistribution schemes, having some bureaucrat tell me how good or bad my groceries are, or basically subsidizing anyone from a columnist over at The New York Times to religious institutions. If it isn't core infrastructure or basic security, keep my wallet out of it!

Look, everything else needs a massive, serious public debate before the government starts blowing through taxpayer money like it’s going out of style—because let's be real, we all know the private sector consistently delivers better, cheaper, and way higher quality services than any government agency ever could. Don't get me wrong—I'm not anti-state! I totally believe a functioning government is essential for civilization to actually move forward, but there's a huge difference between a legitimate, efficient government and... well, whatever "states" we're dealing with here.

That whole bit about mass executions? That was my direct response to your question—you know, that one where you asked, "But what if the masses actually *want* a heavy-handed state that strips away their freedoms?" — I’m just pointing out how absolutely ridiculous it is to think democratic willpower can justify trampling over basic rights. It’s the ultimate slippery slope! Once you start down that path, there's no turning back. You simply cannot vote away fundamental liberties, no matter how many people are cheering for it at the polls. Period.

So, you're basically saying taxes or public healthcare are on the exact same level as sending people to a Gulag. They aren't.

That’s just a narrative you're spinning! My mention of the Gulag was purely a response to those absurd collectivist arguments claiming democracy matters more than freedom—but newsflash: it doesn't, and it shouldn't. Slododa is the ultimate political and social goal here.

See, like we've already pointed out—to you, paying taxes is on par with laws that treat certain groups as inferior races.

Again, you're just building your own straw man! The whole reason you're pushing for such wild, unchecked state power is because of this idealistic vision of an egalitarian society built through central planning—which, by the way, creates a massive pile of problems I really don't feel like listing all over again. Look, there is such a thing as fair taxation—I've explained that plenty of times. But there is NO such thing as "fair" armed robbery, no matter how many times a democratic vote decides to go that route.

Human life is more valuable than business.

And human freedom is more valuable than an egalitarian society. Seriously, what good is a life if you aren't actually free?

True, "collectivist madness with a monopoly on force and total contempt for liberty" brings about terrible things; the only question is which specific brand of collectivist madness you consider to be evil.
For instance, paying taxes, providing public goods, or having a regulated economy isn't "collectivist madness," but shoving people into camps definitely is.

Oh, believe me, we see collectivist madness everywhere we look every single day.

Debts get wiped clean with other people's money, market losers get bailed out with other people's money, cronies get subsidized with other people's money, political buddies get handouts with other people's money, and even theaters, churches, NGOs, nonprofits, and the media get funded with other people's money... all because the government has way too much power and performs functions it should never even touch in a free society. And don't even get me started on the endless army of bureaucrats clogging up agencies, offices, and departments everywhere.

The government is bloated, it has far too much authority, and it plays chess with the lives of actual citizens—if it were up to me, I'd slash its power and stop the constant drain of our hard-earned cash through its coffers.

What about you?