Nono I think they’re on to something

Genuinely surprised and relived by the amount of common sense in this comment thread, that’s all I have to say

Bold of you to think I haven’t studied this.

We don’t agree on much, but I am not against the kind of socialism China employs. The PRC is a great example of a hybrid between socialism and capitalism.

Their party system is a farce dictatorship and the level of surveillance they conduct on their people, the social credit system, etc. are blatant violations of human nature, and I can’t support that. But the concept of a their mix of the two systems is excellent. But that is not actual communism by any stretch. That’s what I would call a perfect hybrid system that I was eluding to earlier.

Because I’m hoping people read this and have the wherewithal to actually review the validity of your BS Wikipedia links before they go down a rabbit hole of starvation and misery.

Also you may want to re-read your 2/3 link again for some of the other stats there, and then verify how the polling was done. That was already way more work than I intended to put into this.

Those sources might be good enough for you, but I assessed at best two of your sources to be credible.

For the record, Wikipedia is NOT considered a credible source by the scientific community. I’d have been laughed at if I even tried to use that in a paper, which I did when I saw you use it.

You produced journals and books that are blatant propaganda. Not science or fact.

Considering all anyone seems to produce here are news articles and blatant propaganda journals, I don’t think it’s worth my time to produce a peer reviewed level of detail.

I mean I did the math myself using up to date numbers.

Modern governments are hardly right wing by any stretch. To call the actions of hybrid socialist capitalist states right wing is disingenuous. Mao’s China, Lenin, Stalin, the October revolution, the deaths of modern day communism in Cuba, Vietnam, etc…

Modern day USA is not a right wing idealogy. It’s a hybrid between both sides of the aisle. Churchill was a right wing politician in a liberal society. Being the farthest right in a leftist democracy is a still being a liberal by all classic definitions. Using actual modern figures the deaths total around 100 million not some antiquated debunked BS propaganda book crafted by a loon (I agree that it was totally insane that people accepted those numbers then).

To say 15 million people die a year to preventable deaths because of capitalism is quite the stretch of the imagination, especially given that almost every major government in the western world is Neo-liberal / semi-socialist in its foundation (and I’m not saying that’s bad).

Capitalism as an economic model has been proven to lift millions of people out of poverty. CCCP vs Russian Federation. The lower wealth disparity just means they were all equally poor and no one was doing well. Even some of the most decadent Soviet lifestyles were still horrendous by western standards. That’s a terrible statistic used by extreme left propagandists to incite anger and hate. It’s relevant in cases like countering the existence of the plutocracy currently running the US government, where the disparity means equal opportunity is no longer possible. The US is not an example of a properly functioning capitalist country. It’s an example of an aristocracy turned plutocracy where no amount of hard work can get you to the top. That defies the basic tenants of capitalism.

I was not using exclusively Nazis, I just used them as the easy equalizer of terms that should be raising alarm bells in your head that you’ve gone too far.

Iraqi invasion was the outcome of aristocracy not Capitalism. Trumps policies are the outcomes of plutocracy, not capitalism.

Capitalism set the conditions for his father to achieve wealth, but those conditions died in the 80s/90s. The fact that Trump was able to lose his wealth time and time again, and that banks are bailed out by government constantly is actually socialism and plutocracy. Those are not capitalistic principles, meaning it’s the desire to prop up businesses to protect the people from a failing economy that is allowing terrible business leaders to rule a country. IE, nepotism spawns from government support to business and industry, which is why nationalizing resources and businesses using a socialist model which is what communism and nazism both advocate for will always fail. They end up with the same outcome. A select few close insiders ruling the middle class (plutocracy or aristocracy). Lenin, Stalin, etc. were not common people. They were above the law and were not equals to the common man.

As someone who’s second family were those who escaped the union, I can assure you those safety nets are nothing more than numbers on a paper. Saying you have supports when your basic living conditions lacked common necessities, is like bragging about the build quality and speed of a 1960s BMW with a rusted out frame and no wheels sitting in a junk yard. It’s a beautifully crafted machine, and engineering marvel, but its state of affairs without proper care and maintenance are a pile of rubble.

Considering that communism is responsible for close to 100 million deaths in the last 100 years vs 20 million by radical right wing views, it’s wild you don’t realize that being a communist is quantifiably worse than being a nazi, and we can all agree that actual Nazis deserve violence.

I’m realizing that

Whatever you say LenPutin

Spoken like a true commie

Get out of here with your sensical rational thoughts

What existence is that?

More emotional baseless counters from the left.

Or maybe the mere fact that you feel that way is more proof of my point, and why we need to fix the communication. I don’t think the left and right are actually that far apart, but identity politics is a wedge movement meant to divide.

If instead we speak about actual policy, and changes we want to se, we may get more traction working together.

Also, left and right both support both oligarchy and plutocracy.

The right sets the conditions for all business to grow which results in people getting rich leaving everyone else behind to fend for themselves. The left set the conditions to decide where exorbitant about of tax dollars go which has proven time and time again to result in nepotism and gross financial mismanagement. See how those broad strokes are simply inflammatory claims?

Orwells Politics and the English Language is a must read on exactly why this kind of dialogue is exactly what they want us to be having.

Violence is not the answer though. Not yet. Uncoordinated violence would just result in thousands dead and no change. Watch Les Misérables again if you doubt me.

To be clear, authoritarianism is rampant on both sides of the aisle. The gross resistance to even basic right wing ideology is proof of that (which to be clear I’m not calling Trump basic right wing). Hell the fact you’re calling for violence is more proof.

Left and right, people want to force others to believe what they believe period. If you don’t agree you get attacked.

We need to stop “fighting” each other, and start listening to each other. Then, instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we can unite against the common threat. Oligarchy, and plutocracy.

Look ma, no hands!

This… I know that my views aren’t the majority, but man do I love this platform and how people actually will have a legit conversation about issues.

The people who are over emotional and stirring the pot don’t get the same support here. Most just want the truth and to actually talk. I love this!