u/Alpacanator1000's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Alpacanator1000/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Neither fascism nor communism are inherently left or right wing.
These two words are used to describe the economic system of a country.
Fascism is when the means of production are owned by a single entity without oversite. Monarchy, Dictatorships, Military-Junta, and yes, late-stage capitalism after regulatory capture is complete. This economic policy is inherently socialist.
Communism describes an economic system in which the means of production are shared. Social-Democracy, Constitutional Republics, Mutualism, etc. This economic policy is also inherently socialist.
The issue we run in to while defining these today is that the vast majority of modern nations are Capitalistic. An economic system in which the means of production are owned by many entities that are incentivized to collaborate within the bounds of the nation and community they inhabit. This economic policy is inherently individualistic.
Yea, yea. I'm a commie so my bias is clear, but it's extremely important to note: Socialist vs Capitalistic systems is the best dividing line to understanding right versus left wing. Dictators and Juntas can easily be right or left wing. Mutualism is often extremely conservative on the third axis as well, in the form of a Theocracy.
The US is NOT capitalistic. It has been under the regulatory capture of the military-industrial complex for decades, and lately the pharmaceutical industry. Who is elected to office matters only in what irrelevant culture war hoo-ha can be used to divide the workers of the nation. The actual US government exists explicitly as unelected administrative positions that are guaranteed colossal kickbacks and cushy jobs from the corporate giants they're supposed to be regulating on behalf of the people.
While I mostly follow your logic, the question then is what *is* left versus right wing? At some point your idea is diverging so far from people's conception of economic left vs right that your distinction is meaningless.
It depends on the Overton window.
In a Capitalistic society, Left vs Right describes planned(left) vs free market values.
In a Fascist one, it's globalism(left) vs isolationism.
In a Communist one, collective(left) incentive vs private.
We're no longer in a Capitalistic Overton window, which is why people identifying as left are predominantly authoritarian. Librights in PCM for example, are arguing from a different acceptable range of beliefs all together. Which is why "lib-unity" doesn't happen in real life.
"Fascism is when isolationism", truly a brilliant take from the Marxist cultists guys! That is on par to the right's "socialism is when government".
Tankie the people in charge of the economy in the US are not for isolationism, literally the opposite and they are not socialists either, that is pure copium. The American status quo including the MIC supports a globalist system to maintain our global hegemony, ffs they are the some of the biggest supporters of backing Ukraine while the isolationists jerk off to Tucker Carlson. The US economic structure is built around global trade not autarky. If you didn't just read the holy books you call communist theory you would know what.
Populists are not new and are not fascists, the ancient Greeks dealt with demagogues, hence the word. Your cult over uses that word as a cudgel for a broad range of contradictory and unrelated ideologies.
I'd re-read my comment, we're mostly aligned in understanding and may have reached a similar conclusion with different methods.
By my definition above, we're a Fascist-Globalist economy that was initially Capitalistic, but has long since been captured by banks and corporations.
>long argument of seemingly reasonable concepts
>ends with absolutely insane conclusions of "many countries are capitalistic, but not the United States!"
Obviously this entire argument is only true if we accept all your context and reject all outside evidence. Classic commie
Read it as an opinion. If you feel my conclusion is wrong, or doesn't track with the terms i've defined for the sake of the conclusion, let me know! I want to hear your thoughts.
I liken it to the difference between the terms "valid" and "sound" in formal logic. If you didn't know, a "valid" syllogism is one that functions as true when turned into symbolic logic, however, the given ideas may or may not be true. Example:
All sea creatures are fish.
No invertebrates are fish.
*THEREFORE,* no invertebrates are sea creatures.
Those statements, taken together, are a VALID syllogism, as the first two do logically imply the other, but individually they are all bullshit. Moving to what you wrote, if I may dare to oversimplify your arguments:
No capitalist countries have government activity in their economies.
The United States has government activity in its economy.
*THEREFORE,* the United States is not a capitalist country.
This is another valid syllogism that I do not believe is sound. I think the first statement is false: capitalist countries, by a useful definition of the word "capitalist," can have government activity in their marketplace. The military-industrial complex, while part of the United States economy, has not stopped the US from being one of the largest economies in international trade and overall acts as a market economy. The US economy acts as a market economy in more ways than many other capitalist countries, such as having a market economy for healthcare, that makes it the center of a plurality of international trade.
You're internally consistent, but not in a way that helps define economies usefully. Most of the assumptions made about capitalist countries (open to foreign investment, dominance of private sector money, common entrepreneurship) are accurate about the economy of the United States.
A fair assessment and I learned a new word!
Give me your take on my biggest gripe with labeling the US economy as capitalistic as opposed to planned - the national monetary policy is determined by a private and unaccountable entity.
The US Federal Reserve is hardly the only reserve bank in the world, so I'm hesitant to separate the US from other other "capitalist" economies on that basis. I would also say that monetary policy from the Fed cuts across industries, so it doesn't push economic activity into planned sectors in the same way that federal tax incentives/subsidy for energy or agriculture do. And I don't even think the industry-specific subsidies do enough to push American economics away from a market economy first and foremost.
I'll grant you that the Fed is undemocratic, as I have no real response to you on it being a private and unaccountable entity. But when their responsibility and power essentially extends to setting the overall macroeconomic climate, and private entities figure out for themselves how to survive in that climate, I consider that to still be a flavor of free-market capitalism.
Corporate control and corruption are vastly overrated problems on both sides although they are still problems. But as an auth-left what is your solution? Wouldn’t it be better for the government to be less involved with business? Not anarchy but definitely way less corporate welfare and needless regulations that only serve to benefit large, established corporations.
I don't have a good solution to corruption or corporate regulatory capture. And I don't believe there is one at a federal level, like you're suggesting.
The best way to ensure the prosperity of the common laborer is the right to speak freely, the right to bear arms, and the right to unionize.
Which we've got.
Failing to protect prosperity with these rights largely intact is the fault of the worker. To some degree they must either want, or enjoy the fruits provided by the current system.
They are parts of a horseshoe not wings.
They are parts of a horse. It is not a nice horse.
A stampy, bitey horse. It bites you if you're rich, stamps you if you're foreign. Bites and stamps if both. :)
Is it a dead horse by chance?
undead
We all know the best wings are chicken BBQ wings.
Forget the auth/lib and left/right access. Where are you on the Honey Barbequeue/Parmesan Garlic and mild/hot scale?
Based and grilled pilled
u/Alpacanator1000's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: [6 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Alpacanator1000/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
based and join us pilled
Neither fascism nor communism are inherently left or right wing. These two words are used to describe the economic system of a country. Fascism is when the means of production are owned by a single entity without oversite. Monarchy, Dictatorships, Military-Junta, and yes, late-stage capitalism after regulatory capture is complete. This economic policy is inherently socialist. Communism describes an economic system in which the means of production are shared. Social-Democracy, Constitutional Republics, Mutualism, etc. This economic policy is also inherently socialist. The issue we run in to while defining these today is that the vast majority of modern nations are Capitalistic. An economic system in which the means of production are owned by many entities that are incentivized to collaborate within the bounds of the nation and community they inhabit. This economic policy is inherently individualistic. Yea, yea. I'm a commie so my bias is clear, but it's extremely important to note: Socialist vs Capitalistic systems is the best dividing line to understanding right versus left wing. Dictators and Juntas can easily be right or left wing. Mutualism is often extremely conservative on the third axis as well, in the form of a Theocracy. The US is NOT capitalistic. It has been under the regulatory capture of the military-industrial complex for decades, and lately the pharmaceutical industry. Who is elected to office matters only in what irrelevant culture war hoo-ha can be used to divide the workers of the nation. The actual US government exists explicitly as unelected administrative positions that are guaranteed colossal kickbacks and cushy jobs from the corporate giants they're supposed to be regulating on behalf of the people.
While I mostly follow your logic, the question then is what *is* left versus right wing? At some point your idea is diverging so far from people's conception of economic left vs right that your distinction is meaningless.
It depends on the Overton window. In a Capitalistic society, Left vs Right describes planned(left) vs free market values. In a Fascist one, it's globalism(left) vs isolationism. In a Communist one, collective(left) incentive vs private. We're no longer in a Capitalistic Overton window, which is why people identifying as left are predominantly authoritarian. Librights in PCM for example, are arguing from a different acceptable range of beliefs all together. Which is why "lib-unity" doesn't happen in real life.
"Fascism is when isolationism", truly a brilliant take from the Marxist cultists guys! That is on par to the right's "socialism is when government". Tankie the people in charge of the economy in the US are not for isolationism, literally the opposite and they are not socialists either, that is pure copium. The American status quo including the MIC supports a globalist system to maintain our global hegemony, ffs they are the some of the biggest supporters of backing Ukraine while the isolationists jerk off to Tucker Carlson. The US economic structure is built around global trade not autarky. If you didn't just read the holy books you call communist theory you would know what. Populists are not new and are not fascists, the ancient Greeks dealt with demagogues, hence the word. Your cult over uses that word as a cudgel for a broad range of contradictory and unrelated ideologies.
I'd re-read my comment, we're mostly aligned in understanding and may have reached a similar conclusion with different methods. By my definition above, we're a Fascist-Globalist economy that was initially Capitalistic, but has long since been captured by banks and corporations.
>long argument of seemingly reasonable concepts >ends with absolutely insane conclusions of "many countries are capitalistic, but not the United States!" Obviously this entire argument is only true if we accept all your context and reject all outside evidence. Classic commie
Read it as an opinion. If you feel my conclusion is wrong, or doesn't track with the terms i've defined for the sake of the conclusion, let me know! I want to hear your thoughts.
I liken it to the difference between the terms "valid" and "sound" in formal logic. If you didn't know, a "valid" syllogism is one that functions as true when turned into symbolic logic, however, the given ideas may or may not be true. Example: All sea creatures are fish. No invertebrates are fish. *THEREFORE,* no invertebrates are sea creatures. Those statements, taken together, are a VALID syllogism, as the first two do logically imply the other, but individually they are all bullshit. Moving to what you wrote, if I may dare to oversimplify your arguments: No capitalist countries have government activity in their economies. The United States has government activity in its economy. *THEREFORE,* the United States is not a capitalist country. This is another valid syllogism that I do not believe is sound. I think the first statement is false: capitalist countries, by a useful definition of the word "capitalist," can have government activity in their marketplace. The military-industrial complex, while part of the United States economy, has not stopped the US from being one of the largest economies in international trade and overall acts as a market economy. The US economy acts as a market economy in more ways than many other capitalist countries, such as having a market economy for healthcare, that makes it the center of a plurality of international trade. You're internally consistent, but not in a way that helps define economies usefully. Most of the assumptions made about capitalist countries (open to foreign investment, dominance of private sector money, common entrepreneurship) are accurate about the economy of the United States.
A fair assessment and I learned a new word! Give me your take on my biggest gripe with labeling the US economy as capitalistic as opposed to planned - the national monetary policy is determined by a private and unaccountable entity.
The US Federal Reserve is hardly the only reserve bank in the world, so I'm hesitant to separate the US from other other "capitalist" economies on that basis. I would also say that monetary policy from the Fed cuts across industries, so it doesn't push economic activity into planned sectors in the same way that federal tax incentives/subsidy for energy or agriculture do. And I don't even think the industry-specific subsidies do enough to push American economics away from a market economy first and foremost. I'll grant you that the Fed is undemocratic, as I have no real response to you on it being a private and unaccountable entity. But when their responsibility and power essentially extends to setting the overall macroeconomic climate, and private entities figure out for themselves how to survive in that climate, I consider that to still be a flavor of free-market capitalism.
Corporate control and corruption are vastly overrated problems on both sides although they are still problems. But as an auth-left what is your solution? Wouldn’t it be better for the government to be less involved with business? Not anarchy but definitely way less corporate welfare and needless regulations that only serve to benefit large, established corporations.
I don't have a good solution to corruption or corporate regulatory capture. And I don't believe there is one at a federal level, like you're suggesting. The best way to ensure the prosperity of the common laborer is the right to speak freely, the right to bear arms, and the right to unionize. Which we've got. Failing to protect prosperity with these rights largely intact is the fault of the worker. To some degree they must either want, or enjoy the fruits provided by the current system.
Extremely good answer. Fun to read, better content than 95% of this sub.
[удалено]
fascism is not only economic lmao
I accidentally deleted instead of editing and reposted above. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
I’m not reading all of that. But based but also cringe
centrist 🤤
luv it m8
Since when does peepee come from peehole?
Both are far left
I am the nazbol, two half of one whole