CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The natural inclination of a collectivist is globalism rather than nationalism.
That’s incorrect. Collectivists are naturally inclined to view individuals according to category, nothing more. In fact, the form that collectivism most commonly takes is racism, and other localized group discrimination.
If a nation has a socialist agenda as well as nationalistic protectionist measures, they are not less socialist. Even if they kicked out all foreigners and declared a socialist utopia for whites only, they would not be less socialist. Simply more selective. Even if it were the case that collectivists tended toward globalism, socialism and nationalism would not be mutually exclusive.
Now that we know a socialist nation can also be ultra nationalist, the question is whether they are right wing for their nationalism or left wing for their socialism.
Collectivists are naturally inclined to view individuals according to category
Collectivists view individuals as part of the community, far leftist collectivism of the brand that I'm talking about views the entire planet as part of the "community".
the form that collectivism most commonly takes is racism
That's a short sighted and primitive type of collectivism, not a Marxist Globalist type of collectivism.
socialist utopia
I've already explained to you 2000 times that I'm not a utopian, utopian socialism is an outdated model from the fucking 18th century.
for whites only
Sorry, ass wipe. Racism is for the right only, one of the literal primary defining characteristics of the left is egalitarianism.
You’re conflating collectivism and socialism. All kinds of people are collectivist, though not all are globalists.
The question remains if an ultra nationalist has a socialist agenda, are they right wing for their nationalism or left wing for their socialism. Your question concerned socialism, not your personal, narrowly defined brand of global socialism.
Not all characteristics on the political spectrum are mutually exclusive from other characteristics on the opposite end of the spectrum. It’s more nuanced then that.
Additionally, the left/right spectrum is deeply flawed and is little more than loosely associated commonly held views
Then why does everything you attack happen to be associated with the left? It's because your overall mindset is that of a primitive neanderthal stuck in the mental ice age of bullshit.
It's because your overall mindset is that of a primitive neanderthal stuck in the mental ice age of bullshit.
I see you’re back to doing what you do when your arguments can’t stand on the merit of reason. You do this almost non-stop. I would be easier for you to just get more reasonable arguments.
You’re conflating collectivism and socialism. All kinds of people are collectivist, though not all are globalists.
Jesus facepalming christ, do you understand nothing? There are different degrees of collectivism and different types of it. You are the one conflating socialist collectivism with tribalism. The kind of collectivism you're talking about is of a smaller scale, a different context and is not the "ultimate" form of collectivism that you would find on the far left.
The question remains if an ultra nationalist has a socialist agenda, are they right wing for their nationalism or left wing for their socialism.
It depends what kind of nationalism it is. A socialist state may defend their interests or be patriotic, but socialism is ultimately egalitarian and concerned with eliminating class and creating a community that works for everyone. A socialist state is not imperialist, elitist, or traditionalist, as these things go against the very core of leftist philosophy.
Your question concerned socialism, not your personal, narrowly defined brand of global socialism.
You retarded cunt, my "personal" socialism is the kind at the farthest end of the left. My collectivism is supreme, I envision a future where all are connected and even alien species are part of the community.
Not all characteristics on the political spectrum are mutually exclusive from other characteristics on the opposite end of the spectrum. It’s more nuanced then that.
Now you're explaining the obvious, assuming I don't know things that I do just so you can tickle your narcissistic little pickle. What you are suggesting goes against the core values of the far left.
You are the one conflating socialist collectivism with tribalism.
That’s incorrect. The only reason we are talking about collectivism at all is because you referred to collectivism in a conversation about socialism. Tribalism is a form of collectivism, and I’m conflating nothing.
The kind of collectivism you're talking about is of a smaller scale
I referred to small scale collectivism to illustrate that it isn’t necessarily globalist in nature. Often it isn’t.
not the "ultimate" form of collectivism that you would find on the far left.
Leftists utilize small scale collectivism too, in the form of class analysis. They simply have global aspirations. If “Commune” was the name of a country, Communists would be as Nationalistic in their global aspirations as the Nazis were.
A socialist state may defend their interests or be patriotic, but socialism is ultimately egalitarian and concerned with eliminating class and creating a community that works for everyone.
There’s a quick way to eliminate class. Just identify the oppressive class and eliminate them. Call it a final solution to the class question.
You retarded cunt, my "personal" socialism is the kind at the farthest end of the left.
And others on the left will claim the same while having different views. When you asked if socialists could be right wing, you hadn’t yet moved the goal post your your personal subjective supposedly ultimate definition.
My collectivism is supreme, I envision a future where all are connected and even alien species are part of the community.
The kind of collectivism you're talking about is of a smaller scale, a different context and is not the "ultimate" form of collectivism that you would find on the far left.
It matters not. Even the middle left are bat shit crazy lunatics who cannot add. Those on the far left? Math forsook you right out of the birth canal.
One could be quasi-libertarian/quasi-anti federalist that support weak federal government, and strong state & local rights/power. Then, each state and/or local community could have much pull on their area. As such, it is possible they could support some form of Socialism on a small level. It is conceivable that an entire town could be run on Worker's Co-operatives, and agree to pull money/resources together in some fashion to be distributed throughout the community in a pre-planned manner. Then, such a person could decide to live under this setting, while supporting limited or no taxes, classical capitalistic corporate structure, etc. etc. elsewhere.
One could be quasi-libertarian/quasi-anti federalist
I myself am a libertarian socialist, and an anti-federalist. These things are not inherently right wing.
that support weak federal government, and strong state & local rights/power.
That's similar to what socialism is meant to do in the first place. The decentralization of power is fundamental to socialist philosophy.
it is possible they could support some form of Socialism on a small level
I could imagine an almost fully socialist state falling under this description. Of course, socialism is a spectrum rather than an absolute. Even some right wing systems have a small degree of socialism but there is a point on the political spectrum somewhere right after "social democracy" where you cross over into actually being fundamentally "Socialist" by definition. And by definition, the more left wing you are, the more socialist you are. Socialism literally is the far left itself.
I myself am a libertarian socialist, and an anti-federalist.
That would hold if you consider the system confined to a local area or state, though not others. That is, in the absence of nation-wide, and/or global mandate.
That's similar to what socialism is meant to do in the first place.
The term "socialism" is a player in a language game, as with "communism". The idea of small-scale communes operated by several dozen or so people at a time few people take issue with, when voluntarily created & maintained--same with worker co-operatives. Now, communes have decentralized power, and organization, however when people practically discuss the terms "socialism" or "communism" in modern political discourse, they refer to willfully & happily conceding tremendous amounts of power to a state authority who would, in principle, act as an authoritative mediator/arbiter/referee/middle-man. Of course, this is the antithesis to the guiding principle of a small-scale commune.
Right Wing
The further right-wing one gets, it strips away government power entirely and becomes individualist in nature. That is, one is in charge of & responsible for themselves, their possessions (i.e. private property) & their family unit, as well as an inner circle, if applicable (e.g. very close friends, etc.). Then, these people/units voluntarily decide whether or not they desire to collaborate with others, or disengage/disassociate. It can potentially look quite a bit like communes, in some instances, with the main difference that people barter and/or trade for goods, if desired, rather than a mandated collaborative pool of community resources.
That would hold if you consider the system confined to a local area or state, though not others. That is, in the absence of nation-wide, and/or global mandate.
Does the same rule apply to capitalism?
communes have decentralized power, and organization, however when people practically discuss the terms "socialism" or "communism" in modern political discourse, they refer to willfully & happily conceding tremendous amounts of power to a state authority
That's not necessarily how it works. Marx believed that in order to implement communism there would first have to be a state, the purpose of which is to re-organize society and then dissipate as more power is passed to the public. Communism itself has no state and refers to the final stage in this process, and when most people say "communism" they mean a primordial version of Marxian socialism where the state still has power. "Communist" countries have never progressed past this point, and that is why I disagree with Marx on how to implement communism. Communism itself though is actually a very good idea.
The further right-wing one gets, it strips away government power entirely and becomes individualist in nature.
That is, put bluntly, a load of bollocks. You are probably watching too much right wing media. The political spectrum is not just left/right (collective/individual) but also up/down (libertarian/authoritarian).
At the farthest end of the right you will find either Fascism or total lawless "every man for himself" anarchy.
At the farthest end of the left you will find either a hive mind or a resource based economy.
Why do you assume that further right (individual, as you put it), is necessarily further down (authoritarian)?
I don't, the far right is either fascism or anarchy depending on how up or down it is.
Why is math fans articulation of far right libertarianism a load of bullocks, but far left libertarianism is not?
He was under the delusion that the right wing itself is about liberty. Quit being a retard and take the time to understand what you're reading before you put in your 2 cents.
Marx believed that in order to implement communism there would first have to be a state, the purpose of which is to re-organize society and then dissipate as more power is passed to the public.
Precisely.
However, most, not all, who self-identify as "communist" & certainly "socialist" never have a thought of a stateless society. Rather, they view the state as a legitimate official/referee/authoritative middle-man that will set down fair rules to the game, and see that they are abided by to a highly reasonable standard. Now, that is quite odd considering one of the foundational beliefs of the ideologies, and particularly communism, is the extreme evils of the state.
Socialism & Communism alike can work very well on a small scale, consisting of people who are on the same page, and can genuinely trust eachother through shared bond/inner circle. However, as it scales it, even starting at one more order of magnitude, it becomes quite problematic. Those who do not consent to the community pool of resources are to be forcibly stolen from, by people they do not know, have no reason to trust, nor do they philosophically agree with, etc. Again, this is assuming the motivation is as stated, as well, for which I disagree about the minority core group/sub-section of the movement pushing the philosophy relative to the followers. That can be explored & explained further in a subsequent post, if desired.
That is, put bluntly, a load of bollocks.
Please state an exact argument, so I know where you are coming from and have something tangible to wrestle with.
In short:
Libertarian far Right-Wing is as stated in my previous post. Nationalist far Right-Wing is very similar to Sparta (as depicted in the relatively recent popular movie).
However, most, not all, who self-identify as "communist" & certainly "socialist" never have a thought of a stateless society.
What utter bullshit. Done a census, have you?
The fact of the matter is that the state is a mechanism of the ruling class according to Marxist theory, so it makes absolutely zero sense under the principles of Marxism to then increase its power. That's fucking stupid. The state exists right now and controls various different aspects of your life, yet somehow capitalists have managed to convince you that the state only tries to do that when the government is socialist. It beggars belief really. It's like me stealing from you and then managing to convince you to vote for me because the other guy is going to steal from you.
Then, you would argue, the average American Progressive has intentions on a stateless society someday in the not-so-distant future? Of course, after conceding a tremendous amount of power to that same government.
Then, you would argue, the average American Progressive has intentions on a stateless society someday in the not-so-distant future?
The average American progressive is a total retard and is not relevant to communism. In my experience there are plenty of communists who are aware of the role of the state and envision a stateless future. There are multiple different schools of thought that I've encountered though, and some have differing views about the state. Marx himself ultimately saw that the state should dissolve, and envisioned the socialist state as largely democratic rather than authoritarian.
Due to my knowledge of technology, and how things have progressed since Marx's death, I have a different idea than Marx about how the global communism will come to be and how it will function. Communism itself is like a skeletal frame for a futuristic system, which was partially "fleshed out" by Jacque Fresco. The thing is, I disagree with both Jacque and Marx on how to implement it, and there is still room for fleshing out. This is where I come in, and my allies as well.
Because right wing down means centralized authority and left wing down means "tyranny of the majority".
That's incorrect. Tyranny of the majority is not different than anarchy. Mobs rule either way.
Right wing down is totalitarian nationalist devoted to their chosen race of people. Left wing down is totalitarian globalist devoted to their chosen class of people. If that seems a little too similar, it's because it is.
Your primary argument is that what everyone else calls left wing does not fit your personal narrow definition. No one else cares.
Tyranny of the majority is not different than anarchy. Mobs rule either way.
It's much different. In anarchy you don't have to listen to the majority. Anarchy doesn't care if you're the majority or not, it cares who is best at acquiring resources.
Left wing down is totalitarian globalist devoted to their chosen class of people.
You literally don't know anything. The left is about equality, the purpose is to ELIMINATE class, not favour one over the other. That is the definition of the right wing, dividing people into classes and favoring one over the other. This is based on wealth under capitalism, breeding under monarchy, and both under fascism.
In other words, in case your primitive right wing brain can't handle this, the right wing has always been the side of hierarchy and the left has been the side of removing it. The "classical liberals" you conservatives love were considered radical left wingers when they were fighting the monarchical status quo.
Your primary argument is that what everyone else calls left wing does not fit your personal narrow definition. No one else cares.
My "personal narrow definition" is THE literal definition. Yours are those of a brainwashed American layman who's knowledge of politics comes from watching Paul Joseph Watson videos on youtube. A "far-leftist" is not fucking FDR, and it's not the biggest right winger in history either. You stupid chimpanzees don't even know the basic definition of socialism and yet you run your retarded hole as if I'm the one who has some alternate fringe definition. You literally have the IQ of a half eaten bag of potato chips.
Tyranny of the majority is not different than anarchy. Mobs rule either way.
It's much different. In anarchy you don't have to listen to the majority.
If you don’t, they will either make you listen or kill you. That’s how mobs work.
Anarchy doesn't care if you're the majority or not
The majority doesn’t care if you explain to them that this is supposed to be anarchy.
The left is about equality, the purpose is to ELIMINATE class
And they have come up with some effective ways to eliminate class, supposedly so that the rest may finally be equal.
That is the definition of the right wing, dividing people into classes and favoring one over the other
Class analysis, class distinction, class awareness, class consciousness,…these are not artifacts of the right. The capitalist isn’t concerned with class, but rather with competence. Money doesn’t see race.
the right wing has always been the side of hierarchy and the left has been the side of removing it.
Hierarchy is a fact, that’s true. The capitalist isn’t concerned with it. That’s the problem the left has with it. There are, of course, right wing racists. They aren’t concerned with class either. They are concerned with blood and soil. They will fail to hire the most qualified person for the job if they are the wrong race, which makes them bad capitalists.
The "classical liberals" you conservatives love were considered radical left wingers when they were fighting the monarchical status quo.
They are considered right wingers by today’s standards.
My "personal narrow definition" is THE literal definition.
Oh. Wow. That will clear up quite a bit of confusion. All the other socialists look at what they mistakenly think are various forms of socialism, various degrees of socialism, and various models of socialism and then hash out what they think is not true socialism. You should just tell everyone that yours is THE definition. If they don’t listen, they probably aren’t real socialists and need to be sent to the gulag.
Yours are those of a brainwashed American layman who's knowledge of politics comes from watching Paul Joseph Watson videos on youtube.
Never heard of him. I’ll look him up.
You stupid chimpanzees don't even know the basic definition of socialism and yet you run your retarded hole as if I'm the one who has some alternate fringe definition. You literally have the IQ of a half eaten bag of potato chips.
In just a couple sentences you marked yourself as anti-handicapped, anti-low IQ, and maybe racist?. Normally you would have called me a Jew by now. Would Marx be proud; or that other guy?
If you don’t, they will either make you listen or kill you. That’s how mobs work
In a state of total anarchy, there is no guarantee that there will be a majority. There is no guarantee of a unified mob, because there is no over all social order other than pure natural selection. Anarchy is a vacuum as well, so something will always replace it such as tribalism or whatever else.
Class analysis, class distinction, class awareness, class consciousness,…these are not artifacts of the right.
I agree, the left is the side that understands these things and tries to address them. The right is the side that creates class and tries to maintain the status quo.
The capitalist isn’t concerned with class, but rather with competence.
Capitalism is not a meritocracy, it's a system where the same bloodlines stay at the top due to inheritance, just like feudalism. These are the same people that right wing conspiracy theorists call the "evil marxist globalist pedophiles". In reality they are what you get with capitalism, a hidden aristocracy that controls the government and the media.
Money doesn’t see race.
It does in a racist nation, tell that to a 19th century American negro.
Hierarchy is a fact, that’s true. The capitalist isn’t concerned with it
They create the hierarchy, and are very concerned with keeping their place in it.
In a state of total anarchy, there is no guarantee that there will be a majority.
But you as a socialist must realise that Marx called for revolution which is an accepted definition of anarchy so whats your point?
Your statement regarding natural selection is pure nonsense regarding the topic in hand.
There is no guarantee of a unified mob, because there is no over all social order other than pure natural selection. Anarchy is a vacuum as well, so something will always replace it such as tribalism or whatever else.
Anarchy / revolution is a vacuum? It sounds as ridiculous as it reads
I agree, the left is the side that understands these things and tries to address them.
How does it address them?
The right is the side that creates class and tries to maintain the status quo.
How exactly?
The capitalist isn’t concerned with class, but rather with competence.
Nonsense, a capitalist is anyone who partakes in the capitalist system and if one is deemed lower class according to ones income one nearly always tries to better ones self thus elevating themselves from lower to middle class etc,, etc ,
Capitalism is not a meritocracy, it's a system where the same bloodlines stay at the top due to inheritance, just like feudalism.
Utter nonsense , if the system is run by people voted into positions of power by us what’s your position deny then the positions they were justly elected into because you don’t like it?
These are the same people that right wing conspiracy theorists call the "evil marxist globalist pedophiles". In reality they are what you get with capitalism, a hidden aristocracy that controls the government and the media.
More purile nonsense stated without anything but your opinion
It does in a racist nation, tell that to a 19th century American negro.
It doesn’t see race ,racists see race , the 19 th century American was not knowingly a racist as the universal view was negros were little more than beasts
Hierarchy is a fact, that’s true. The capitalist isn’t concerned with it
Really a capitalist is not concerned with relative status or authority?
They create the hierarchy, and are very concerned with keeping their place in it.
Oh wow! They are not concerned with hierarchy but create it and are very “ concerned” about it? WTF !!!!
Now I know why you resort to racism and personal attacks it’s beacause you haven’t got the brains of a donkey
In a state of total anarchy, there is no guarantee that there will be a majority.
There is a guarantee that not everyone will be alone. Which means it is a guarantee that there will be a majority.
There is no guarantee of a unified mob, because there is no over all social order other than pure natural selection
Whatever mob wants something from you will be unified, even if they are in disagreement with the mob in the next county. Regardless of the size of the majority in question, mobs rule either way, like I said.
I agree, the left is the side that understands these things and tries to address them.
We know how the left has tried to address them in the past. You don’t like when we bring it up.
The right is the side that creates class and tries to maintain the status quo.
When Hitler rose to power, took control of the reins of government, and then changed the chancellorship to a dictatorship, he was not concerned with maintaining the status quo. Nor is it the case that the right creates class. Class is a function of every possible human social order.
Capitalism is not a meritocracy, it's a system where the same bloodlines stay at the top due to inheritance, just like feudalism.
This is historically false. The majority of people at the high end will not remain there for very long. The majority of people in general will be in the top 20% for at least a year in their lives. This isn’t to say that capitalism is 100% meritocratic, but neither is it feudalism in the least. Furthermore, meritocratic practices are incentivized in capitalism more than in any other system, since merit equals profit.
It does in a racist nation, tell that to a 19th century American negro.
Who lived in the poverty stricken south that was being economically out-competed by the comparatively free north, where you might meet an American negro named James Forten, Samuel Wilcox, Stephen Smith, William Leidesdorff, or others who were each worth 100’s of thousands of dollars in 1800’s money, when they thrived.
Hierarchy is a fact. The best we can do is attempt to insure hierarchy is fair.
To say it is socialism for the investor class, is to say they own the benefits...the profits, while taxpayers 'own' the risk. For far too many it is heads they win...tails you lose.
