Communism Outside The Gulag

[PoliticalChic]

Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
Its the epitome of big government.

Another moron joins the fray.


Bernie Sanders is a communist.

Communists decry private property to the extent that they starved 10 million men, women and children to death to prove that point.


Did I mention that you're a moron?

 

[dudmuck]

Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
Its the epitome of big government.

Another moron joins the fray.


Bernie Sanders is a communist.

Communists decry private property to the extent that they starved 10 million men, women and children to death to prove that point.


Did I mention that you're a moron?

Do you understand what communism is? Its where you have a classless society, where everything is owned by everybody.
By contrast, Sanders is a democratic socialist. This is where you have democratic management of economy with emphasis on market socialism. This system accepts a certain level of inequality, but attempts to keep it at reasonable levels; where there are still classes, but differences between classes arent so extreme. Under market socialism, you still have support for private property, and you have support for equal opportunity.
Its just a reality these days with growing inequality, the equal opportunity is degraded.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
Its the epitome of big government.

Another moron joins the fray.


Bernie Sanders is a communist.

Communists decry private property to the extent that they starved 10 million men, women and children to death to prove that point.


Did I mention that you're a moron?

Do you understand what communism is? Its where you have a classless society, where everything is owned by everybody.
By contrast, Sanders is a democratic socialist. This is where you have democratic management of economy with emphasis on market socialism. This system accepts a certain level of inequality, but attempts to keep it at reasonable levels; where there are still classes, but differences between classes arent so extreme. Under market socialism, you still have support for private property, and you have support for equal opportunity.
Its just a reality these days with growing inequality, the equal opportunity is degraded.

Back, begging for another lesson???

No prob....


1. " [At] the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.


2. ...graduating with a political science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.” Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post



But ".... the liberal media elite have suddenly stopped calling him socialist. He’s now cleaned up as a “progressive” or “pragmatist.” NYPost, Op. Cit.


Socialist....communist....and Progressive.....

Distinctions without differences.


3." ... Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies. [Before Maxine Waters, too!]


... Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts. Local small businesses distributed fliers complaining their new mayor “does not believe in free enterprise.”



4. His radical activities didn’t stop at the water’s edge. Sanders took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.


In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a “heroic revolution.” Undermining anti-communist US policy, Sanders denounced the Reagan administration’s backing of the Contra rebels in a letter to the Sandinistas.


“The Sandinista government has more support among the Nicaraguan people — substantially more support — than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” Sanders told Vermont government-access TV in 1985." Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post



5. "Sanders also adopted a Soviet sister city outside Moscow and honeymooned with his second wife in the USSR. He put up a Soviet flag in his office, shocking even the Birkenstock-wearing local liberals. At the time, the Evil Empire was on the march around the world, and threatening the US with nuclear annihilation.


Then, in 1989, as the West was on the verge of winning the Cold War, Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council — a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to “the triumph of Soviet power in the US.” Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post



6."Today, Sanders wants to bring what he admired in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua and other communist states to America.


For starters, he proposes completely nationalizing our health care system and putting private health insurance and drug companies “out of business.” He also wants to break up “big banks” and control the energy industry, while providing “free” college tuition, a “living wage” and guaranteed homeownership and jobs through massive public works projects.


Price tag: $18 trillion.


Who will pay for it all? You will. Sanders plans to not only soak the rich with a 90 percent-plus tax rate, while charging Wall Street a “speculation tax,” but hit every American with a “global-warming tax.”


Of course, even that wouldn’t cover the cost of his communist schemes; a President Sanders would eventually soak the middle class he claims to champion. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?


QED, Bernie Sanders, communist.


If you'd like a lesson on why the difference between socialism and Bolshevism is a difference without a distinction, don't hesitate to whine....er, ask.

 

[alang1216]

But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.

Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered? They need to be shot!

 

[PoliticalChic]

But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.

Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered? They need to be shot!

When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....this individual sneered at the deaths this way:


"Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
FDR Admiration Society


You can take it up directly with him.
FDR Admiration Society

 

[alang1216]

But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.

Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered? They need to be shot!

When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....this individual sneered at the deaths this way:


"Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
FDR Admiration Society


You can take it up directly with him.
FDR Admiration Society

That is weak, even by your standards.

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun

1. the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
   "his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
   synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing;
   irony;
   cynicism
   "well, it's easy to see that she got her biting sarcasm from her mother"

 

[PoliticalChic]

But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.

Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered? They need to be shot!

When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....this individual sneered at the deaths this way:


"Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
FDR Admiration Society


You can take it up directly with him.
FDR Admiration Society

That is weak, even by your standards.

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun

1. the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
   "his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
   synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing;
   irony;
   cynicism
   "well, it's easy to see that she got her biting sarcasm from her mother"

You never seem to miss the chance to dissemble.

Dissemble
verb (used with object), dissembled, dissembling.
1.
to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of:



You must be a Liberal, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. As pointed out, every iteration of collectivism is essentially the same...communal property rather than private property.

That means all of these:
Socialism, Liberalism, Nazism, Fascism, Progressivism, and Communism.

But all aren't equally bad, equally harsh....but all have the same fundamental basis: the individual counts for nothing.



One would have imagined that the defenders of the above might have pointed out a pretty good example: the Israeli kibbutz.



Those who have studied existentialism are familiar with the philosopher Martin Buber.

“In his book Paths in Utopia, which remains one of the most powerful critiques of authoritarian socialism, he claimed that this movement [the kibbutz] was one example of a non-authoritarian, libertarian or "utopian" socialism that had not failed.”
https://www.peacenews.info/node/3979/martin-bubers-paths-utopia-kibbutz-experiment-didnt-fail



Buber spoke too soon.

Next.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6.The Israeli Kibbutz was an enviable attempt to exhibit the best features of socialism. When Buber wrote the above, it seemed destined to succeed….a utopian society expressing some of the noblest of aspirations.

I had the opportunity to visit the Middle East last summer, and stayed at a hotel that had been a kibbutz, Hotel Hagoshrim.

Visitors were given a lecture by Hannah Levi, who has worked at Hagoshim for over 60 years....from its communist beginnings to the current, capitalist principles.

"Israeli Kibbutz transformed from farm to resort."

Israeli Kibbutz transformed from farm to resort





What happened to the kibbutz is a cautionary tale about socialism/Liberalism itself.


Next.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.



The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.

And, a failure.


“On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.

With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.

When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz


“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50



Not convinced?

Try Venezuela.
“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight

 

[Rigby5]

...
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.

Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism

...

That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.

 

[Rigby5]

3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.

Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money

1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived. But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected. It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc. It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.

 

[Rigby5]

7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.

The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.

And, a failure.

“On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.

With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.

When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz


“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50

Not convinced?

Try Venezuela.
“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight

Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.

 

[alang1216]

Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest where socialism does work. ,

Europeans seem quite happy with their brand of socialism. The Norwegians seem quite happy to share their oil wealth.

The US is another example. People seem pleased with Social Security and Medicare.

I'd venture to say that every country that ever existed has aspects of capitalism, socialism, and communism to varying degrees. It never has been or ever will be an A, B, or C, it will always be D, all the above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.

Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism

...

That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.

"That is pretty much totally wrong."

Nothing I post is wrong in any way.



{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."


While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981

b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.

c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.


I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
Not the most auspicious start on the exam.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.

Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism

...

That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

Zero

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

Zero


{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

Zero

Perhaps you'd like to offer this bit of offal to the bakers who where fined $135,000 for declining to bake a cake.
Egad, have you been in a closet your whole life?????


I hope you do better on the rest of the test.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...
Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”

And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.

Nazism
Communism
Socialism
Fascism
Progressivism
Liberalism
Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism

...

That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

Zero


{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
Zero


(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

Zero

 

[PoliticalChic]

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.


And.....three more zeros.


You are truly an embarrassment as a student....although, for government schooling, indoctrination....you are the poster child.



Your remediation begins immediately....with Powers' book.


I'm certain that a nice adult will help you get a library card.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.

Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money

1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)

And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.

You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived. But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected. It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc. It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.

Read more carefully this time, you dunce:

3. A great, if unmentioned, benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.

…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.



Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling what they didn't possess to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24,1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)



And because they had no concept of private property, Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Here, on this continent, it was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.



“In his article “Towards a theory of property rights” Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians the impact of private property. It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).

… when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).

Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights



Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:

"It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name onlyunder the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


Just like Liberalism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.

The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.

And, a failure.

“On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.

With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.

When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz


“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.”
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50

Not convinced?

Try Venezuela.
“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight

Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.

"Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, ..."

You represent the typical cannon fodder turned out by government schooling: the indoctrination is indelible.

You are too weak and too lazy to break out of it.

These six are, each and every one, based on bending the knee and the neck to the collective:
Socialism, Progressivism, Communism, Liberalism, Fascism and Nazism.

None are based on this:
1. In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”

You haven't read that, have you.
That's your next assignment.


2. The kibbutz movement ended when individualism became more important than the collective.

"The kibbutz movement continued to thrive both economically and socially through the 1960s and ’70s. In 1989, the population of Israel’s kibbutzim reached its peak at 129,000 people living on 270 kibbutzim, about 2 percent of Israel’s population.

But high inflation and interest rates led to economic crisis for many kibbutzim. In the 1980s and ’90s, many kibbutzim declared bankruptcy and thousands of kibbutz members defected. In keeping with an increasing trend of individualism in Israel and world-wide, these former kibbutz members sought new opportunities in Israeli cities, and some left Israel altogether."
The Kibbutz Movement | My Jewish Learning