Defining "Liberalism"

[edthecynic]

Your new name should be Plagiarist Chic

I call her "Pompous Cheek," I think it fits best!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your new name should be Plagiarist Chic

Never happened.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Socialism <------- Liberalism ------- Centrism ------- Conservatism -------> Fascism

Notice how there are very distinct differences between all 5 of these ideologies.
Notice how you can subscribe to different ideas of each ideology (for example, you can be socially liberal but economically conservative).
Notice how politics are not black and white as the OP seems to be suggesting.

Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right.
WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

That is the reason that Nazism and communism belong on the same side of the spectrum.



Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.

 

[Edgetho]

If you want to understand socialism, a must read is Draper's The Two Souls Of Socialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/

It is a brilliant piece written BY a socialist and FOR socialists.

In fact, it is Draper who is credited as influencing much of the 'Third Way' socialist governments of the last 40 years or so.

I don't recommend it lightly.

worth the read and is more contemporaneous than you think

 

[Destroyer2]

Socialism <------- Liberalism ------- Centrism ------- Conservatism -------> Fascism

Notice how there are very distinct differences between all 5 of these ideologies.
Notice how you can subscribe to different ideas of each ideology (for example, you can be socially liberal but economically conservative).
Notice how politics are not black and white as the OP seems to be suggesting.

Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right.
WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

That is the reason that Nazism and communism belong on the same side of the spectrum.



Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.

Yes, only liberals would claim that fascism is a rightist ideology.
Right.

Now, let's get back to reality.

The far left (also known as the extreme left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.

The far left typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies, while the centre left works within the system to achieve egalitarianism. In societies that tolerate dissent, far-left groups usually participate in the democratic process to advance their goals. The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner.

This is communism and socialism.

The centre-left also referred to as the moderate left, describes adherence to views leaning to the left but closer to the centre on the left-right political spectrum than other left-wing variants. Centre leftists, such as social democrats or social liberals, believe in working within the established systems to improve social justice. The centre-left promotes a degree of social equality that it believes is achievable through promoting equal opportunity. The centre-left has promoted luck egalitarianism that emphasizes that the achievement of equality requires personal responsibility in areas in control by the individual person through their abilities and talents and social responsibility in areas outside of control by the individual person in their abilities or talents.

The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible (sometimes not even desirable), but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society.

In Europe, the centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, greens, progressives and also some democratic socialists. Some social liberals are described as centre-left, but also a lot of social liberals are in the centre of the political spectrum.

This is Democrats and liberals (Greens fit here too).

The centre-right also referred to as the moderate right, describes adherence to views leaning to the right but closer to the centre on the left-right political spectrum than other right-wing variants.

From the 1830s to the 1880s, there was a shift in the Western world of social class structure and the economy, moving away from the nobility and mercantilism, and moving towards the bourgeoisie and capitalism. This general economic shift towards capitalism affected centre-right movements such as the British Conservative Party that responded by becoming supportive of capitalism.

The International Democrat Union, an alliance of centre-right political parties, including the British Conservative Party, the Republican Party of the United States, the Liberal Party of Australia, Christian democratic parties, amongst others across the world, is committed to the principles that "democratic societies provide individuals throughout the world with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organisation, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organise effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity".

Hi conservatives! This is you.

The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views. The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.

This would be Nazis, fascists, and extreme authoritarians.

On this forum, we have a representative of all 4 of these major ideologies (plus centrism, which I didn't include here). Democrats fit under centre-left, Republicans and most Tea Party members fit under centre-right, other Tea Party members under far right, and actual Communists/Socialists under the far left.

However, it isn't all black and white; some Republicans take on social views supported by the Democrats, and some Democrats take on economic views supported by Republicans.

The way you're describing politics, OP is simply stupid and partisan (implying that Republicans can do no wrong).

And yes, the Nazis did call themselves National Socialist; while it contains socialism, it actually is too unlike socialism to really be called a type of socialism. However, some supporters of horseshoe theory say communism is closer to fascism than liberalism is to communism or conservatism to fascism, which is still not what you're saying. So the political scientists would like to have a word with you.

 

[Edgetho]

Mussolini was a 'Fascist'

Hitler was a "National Socialist"

The differences are stark and the fact that you don't know that is very telling.

I'd ask for my tuition back from the University of Phoenix online history course if I were you

 

[Foxfyre]

Socialism <------- Liberalism ------- Centrism ------- Conservatism -------> Fascism

Notice how there are very distinct differences between all 5 of these ideologies.
Notice how you can subscribe to different ideas of each ideology (for example, you can be socially liberal but economically conservative).
Notice how politics are not black and white as the OP seems to be suggesting.

Totalitarianism

Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. A more accurate spectrum would place totalitarians of many stripes on the left and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right.
WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

That is the reason that Nazism and communism belong on the same side of the spectrum.

Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.

Yep, given modern definitions of left and right, it should be:

LEFT<---totalitarianism....communism/Marxism....facism....socialism/progressivism....centrism....limited socialism....economic conservatism....classical liberalism.....anarchy--->RIGHT

Given that none of us would choose either extreme--or at least most of us would not--we are left to pick an ideology out of the middle somewhere. Obvously modern day American liberals would pick something left of centrism - modern day American consevatives would pick somethng right of centrism.

The definitions for the graph:

Totalitarianism: despotism, dictatorship, monarchy, total government control over the people.

Communism/Marxism: no private property; all resources shared by all according to their need - effected by a totalitarian central government that presumably will dissolve itself when all private ownership is dissolved and the communal process is working effectively.

Socialism/progressivism: the federal government has a great deal of power and influence in the means and methods of production and in ordering the social culture of the people.

Centrism: Those with no political beliefs or social values whatsoever or those who embrace components of all.

Limited socialism: The people agree on social contract for the purpose of sharing certain functions, services, and infrastructure and put a government into place to administer that.

Classical liberalism: the federal government provides the common defense, secures the unalienable rights of the people, enforces sufficient regulation only for the purpose of facilitating the various states being able to function efficiently and effectively as one cohesive nation, and otherwise leaves the people alone to live their lives and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Anarchy: No laws, no rules, no recognition of unalienable rights. Every man, woman, and child will look to their own interests and defend those as best as they can.

 

[Rinata]

JFK Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Wanna take a stab at the challenge in post #9?

Don't be afraid.

Why don't you?? You're the one that posted it. What is it based on??

 

[Dragonlady]

As a result of Reagan's economic policies, the nation saw a 25-year economic surge.

1. In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001.

They wrote:
"We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom-the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth-assets minus liabilities-of all U.S. households and business ... was $25 trillion in today's dollars. By 2007, ... net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years."
http://theccpp.org/2011/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures-1.html


2. “Between the early 1980s and 2007 we lived in an economic Golden Age. Never before have so many people advanced so far economically in so short a period of time as they have during the last 25 years. Until the credit crisis, 70 million people a year were joining the middle class. The U.S. kicked off this long boom with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan, particularly his enormous income tax cuts. We burst from the economic stagnation of the 1970s into a dynamic, innovative, high-tech-oriented economy. Even in recent years the much-maligned U.S. did well. Between year-end 2002 and year-end 2007 U.S. growth exceeded the entire size of China's economy.”
How Capitalism Will Save Us - Forbes


3.
1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reagan’s fans give him credit for restoring the nation’s prosperity. But whatever economic growth occurred during the Reagan years only benefited those already well off. The income gap between the rich and everyone else in America widened. Wages for the average worker declined and the nation’s homeownership rate fell. During Reagan’s two terms in the White House, which were boon times for the rich, the poverty rate in cities grew.

. . . 

Reagan also presided over the dramatic deregulation of the nation’s savings and loan industry allowing S&Ls to end their reliance on home mortgages and engage in an orgy of commercial real estate speculation. The result was widespread corruption, mismanagement and the collapse of hundreds of thrift institutions that ultimately led to a taxpayer bailout that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
[/quote]

Reagan's Legacy:  Homelessness in America - Peter Dreier

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html

[quote]When the requirements for managing savings and loan institutions became lax in the 1980s, leaders of those organizations invested money recklessly. Many institutions failed or came close to failure, and the cleanup cost more than $150 billion. Yet blame for that crisis did not stick to the Teflon President. Recent troubles in the American economy can be attributed to a weakening of business regulation in the public interest, which is, in large part, a consequence of Reagan's anti-government preaching.

[/quote]

The Ronal Reagan Myth

http://prorev.com/reagan.htm

Ronald Reagan must be the nicest president who ever destroyed a union, tried to cut school lunch milk rations from six to four ounces, and compelled families in need of public help to first dispose of household goods in excess of $1,000...If there is an authoritarian regime in the American future, Ronald Reagan is tailored to the image of a friendly fascist. - Robert Lekachman

"I do not propose that Reagan and his aides are fascists, but I do suggest that they could well - because of their ignorance, selfishness and egotism - be leading us into a proto-fascist period in which America would accept accelerated depreciation of its democratic values based on the faulty premises so effectively sold by the Reagan crowd.

Stand back a minute and look around you. We face a massive deficit and what does our president want to do to correct it? Increase still further military spending even at the cost of destroying programs that have been an integral part of American life for decades. Forget about the issue of priorities and think what this says about who holds power in this country. When people starve to feed the military machine, democracy is in deep trouble. In truth, the Reagan administration is an attempt to turn the military-industrial combination from a complex to a full autocracy."  

"In April 2004, the nation's trade gap hit a record $48 billion, precisely the sort of thing extreme capitalism, free trade, and globalization was supposed to prevent."
- Sam Smith

[quote]But the expansion of stockownership to nearly 30% of American households still left more than two-thirds of the country shut out of direct benefits from the great bull market of the Age of Reagan. For the 70% of American households that still lacked any stake at all in the stock market, the Reagan economy was not quite so lustrous as it seemed to those enjoying the fruits of rising equity values. Real wages, which had increased steadily from 1945 to 1972 but then stalled through the stagflation era, remained flat through the 1980s as well. Unemployment declined from the atrocious highs of the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the high-paying blue-collar industrial jobs that had been the mainstay of the midcentury economy continued to disappear. (It's important to note that this process began long before Reagan came into office, however.) In short, the economic outlook for middle- and working-class families who depended on wages for their incomes was somewhat better than it had been during the bleak 1970s, but still significantly worse than it had been during the 1950s and '60s.

The uneven distribution of benefits from the Reagan boom reflected a growing trend toward what has been called the "financialization" of the American economy. As the financial sector displaced industrial manufacturing as the dominant economic force in American society, the gains from growth came to accrue almost entirely to those with major investments in the market, while individuals dependent solely upon wages and salaries found it harder and harder to get ahead. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the wealthiest one-fifth of American households (those who naturally owned the most stock) saw their incomes increase by 14%. Meanwhile, the poorest one-fifth (who presumably owned no stock) endured an income decline of 24%, while the incomes of the middle three-fifths of American families stayed more or less flat. This uneven pattern represented a marked departure from the earlier economic expansions of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, which had generated smaller returns for investors but raised income levels across all classes of society. 
[/quote]
http://www.shmoop.com/reagan-era/economy.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE

I have Google and know how to cut and paste too, but that's just regurgitating the observations and opinions of others.  It's no indication of my ability to think for myself, nor is it an indication of my critical faculties to evaluate the information gleaned.  Taking that information and formulating my own ideas based on my education and experiences using sources from both sides of the political spectrum, indicates the value of those opinions.

The right is perfectly happy to parrot right wing economic propaganda which distorts the Reagan Legacy because it legitimizes greed and blaming the poor.  This distracts those most harmed by these policies, which is nearly everyone below the top 20% of income earners from the real problems created by the upward movement of wealth over the past 30 years.

Being able to cut and paste and then insulting people whose opinions differ from those of your sources indicates an utter lack of both critical functions of thinking for oneself, and being able to formulate an original response to those who disagree with you.

You haven't posted ONE original idea that you wrote yourself, just more cutting and pasting.

In your case, PC stands for "Perfectly Clueless".

 

[Billy000]

So what ended up as the definition of liberalism?

Communism-lite.

Okay, how about this Chic.

Hi, my name is Billy. I identity as a liberal. I do not believe communism or socialism to be effective economic systems. I believe capitalism to be the most successful system (despite it still being problematic in key ways).

There. Do you feel like your brain is going to explode? I'm sure you must feel very confused right now. Do yourself a favor and read a book on what exactly contemporary liberalism in America is. It will do wonders for the massive migraine this post has probably caused you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what ended up as the definition of liberalism?

Communism-lite.

Okay, how about this Chic.

Hi, my name is Billy. I identity as a liberal. I do not believe communism or socialism to be effective economic systems. I believe capitalism to be the most successful system (despite it still being problematic in key ways).

There. Do you feel like your brain is going to explode? I'm sure you must feel very confused right now. Do yourself a favor and read a book on what exactly contemporary liberalism in America is. It will do wonders for the massive migraine this post has probably caused you.

Insight is not your strong suit, Billy....

The Liberal establishment, the elites, endorse every one of the aims and designs of the Communist Party.
And, by giving them your vote......

....so do you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Communism-lite.

Okay, how about this Chic.

Hi, my name is Billy. I identity as a liberal. I do not believe communism or socialism to be effective economic systems. I believe capitalism to be the most successful system (despite it still being problematic in key ways).

There. Do you feel like your brain is going to explode? I'm sure you must feel very confused right now. Do yourself a favor and read a book on what exactly contemporary liberalism in America is. It will do wonders for the massive migraine this post has probably caused you.

Insight is not your strong suit, Billy....

The Liberal establishment, the elites, endorse every one of the aims and designs of the Communist Party.
And, by giving them your vote......

....so do you.

The problem with modern day American liberalism is that those who so identify themselves as that - or those who betray themselves as that by consistently voting for liberals - don't CARE what policies, beliefs, or practices they are voting for.

They are voting with some kind of notion that liberals are just nicer and better people, and therefore they will govern better.

We see this in thread after thread after thread. The liberals absolutely will not read, will not discuss, will not even consider any critical analysis of a liberal person or liberal policies. They are totally blind to all flaws and can only see that the intention is to be nicer and better, and therefore it is good.

 

[ClosedCaption]

PC stole some more "original thoughts" from someone?

 

[Edgetho]

Okay, how about this Chic.

Hi, my name is Billy. I identity as a liberal. I do not believe communism or socialism to be effective economic systems. I believe capitalism to be the most successful system (despite it still being problematic in key ways).

There. Do you feel like your brain is going to explode? I'm sure you must feel very confused right now. Do yourself a favor and read a book on what exactly contemporary liberalism in America is. It will do wonders for the massive migraine this post has probably caused you.

Insight is not your strong suit, Billy....

The Liberal establishment, the elites, endorse every one of the aims and designs of the Communist Party.
And, by giving them your vote......

....so do you.

The problem with modern day American liberalism is that those who so identify themselves as that - or those who betray themselves as that by consistently voting for liberals - don't CARE what policies, beliefs, or practices they are voting for.

They are voting with some kind of notion that liberals are just nicer and better people, and therefore they will govern better.

We see this in thread after thread after thread. The liberals absolutely will not read, will not discuss, will not even consider any critical analysis of a liberal person or liberal policies. They are totally blind to all flaws and can only see that the intention is to be nicer and better, and therefore it is good.

the party is infallible

 

[Dragonlady]

Insight is not your strong suit, Billy....

The Liberal establishment, the elites, endorse every one of the aims and designs of the Communist Party.
And, by giving them your vote......

....so do you.

Links please to ANY part of the Democratic Platform which endorses communal ownership of property, or government control of business or industry, or any major goal of communism?

And just as an additional comment, why do you feel it necessary to insult anyone who disagrees with your ideas. Are so lacking in self esteem that you must try to tear people down in order to feel good about yourself? Perhaps it's to cover the lack of real substance in your ideas. In either case, it cements the notion that you're immature and incapable of adult discussion.

PC = Petulant Child

 

[Edgetho]

So what ended up as the definition of liberalism?

Communism-lite.

Okay, how about this Chic.

Hi, my name is Billy. I identity as a liberal. I do not believe communism or socialism to be effective economic systems. I believe capitalism to be the most successful system (despite it still being problematic in key ways).

There. Do you feel like your brain is going to explode? I'm sure you must feel very confused right now. Do yourself a favor and read a book on what exactly contemporary liberalism in America is. It will do wonders for the massive migraine this post has probably caused you.

I have read more about socialism and communism and social democracies and democratic socialists and fascists and national socialists than you could ever dream of...

Trust me, you're a socialist. You're just too stupid to know it

https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/9-6strains.htm

The tendency toward the collectivization of capitalism is indeed a reality: as we have seen, it means the bureaucratic collectivization of capitalism. As this process has advanced, the contemporary social-democracy has itself gone through a metamorphosis. Today, the leading theoretician of this neo-reformism, C.A.R. Crosland, denounces as “extremist” the mild statement favoring nationalization which was originally written for the British Labor program by none other than Sidney Webb (with Arthur Henderson)! The number of continental social democracies that have now purged their programs of all specifically anti-capitalist content – a brand new phenomenon in socialist history – reflects the degree to which the ongoing process of bureaucratic collectivization is accepted as an installment of petrified “socialism.”

This is permeationism as grand strategy. It leads, of course, to permeationism as political tactic, a subject we cannot here pursue beyond mentioning its presently most prominent U.S. form: the policy of supporting the Democratic Party and the lib-lab coalition around the “Johnson Consensus,” its predecessors and successors.

The distinction between these two “families” of Socialism-from-Above holds for home-grown socialism, from Babeuf to Harold Wilson; that is, cases where the social base of the given socialist current is inside the national system, be it the labor aristocracy or declassé elements or any other. The case is somewhat different for those “socialisms-from-outside” represented by the contemporary Communist Parties, whose strategy and tactics depend in the last analysis on a power base outside any of the domestic social strata; that is, on the bureaucratic collectivist ruling classes in the East.

The Communist Parties have shown themselves uniquely different from any kind of home-grown movement in their capacity to alternate or combine both the “revolutionary”-oppositionist and the permeationist tactics to suit their convenience. Thus the American Communist Party could swing from its ultra-left-adventurist “Third Period” of 1928-34 into the ultra-permeationist tactic of the Popular Front period, then back into fire-breathing “revolutionism” during the Hitler-Stalin Pact period, and again, during the ups-and-downs of the Cold War, into various degrees of combination of the two. With the current Communist split along Moscow-Peking line, the “Krushchevites” and the Maoists tend each to embody one of the two tactics which formerly alternated.

Frequently, therefore, in domestic policy the official Communist Party and the social-democrats tend to converge on the policy of permeationism, though from the angle of a different Socialism-from-Above.

 

[Moonglow]

Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.

Lie much? Well if it fits your political agenda, the super logic college dweeb is proving once again that she is a victim of ad hominem.

 

[Moonglow]

Communism-lite.

Okay, how about this Chic.

Hi, my name is Billy. I identity as a liberal. I do not believe communism or socialism to be effective economic systems. I believe capitalism to be the most successful system (despite it still being problematic in key ways).

There. Do you feel like your brain is going to explode? I'm sure you must feel very confused right now. Do yourself a favor and read a book on what exactly contemporary liberalism in America is. It will do wonders for the massive migraine this post has probably caused you.

Insight is not your strong suit, Billy....

The Liberal establishment, the elites, endorse every one of the aims and designs of the Communist Party.
And, by giving them your vote......

....so do you.

Good thing those great conservatives broke with England to make a great conservative form of government in the US.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't see anything much more beneficial to all under capitalism. Than other forms of government through history and empires. The Mongols had the largest empire in the world, were they capitalist? No. The Chinese had the second, were they capitalist, no. Greeks, no, Romans, no. And it goes on and on. Britannia had sort of a capitalistic empire, but not a real capitalist society.

Capitalism is like democracy. To few can control the masses and exploit the social weakness.

 

[Foxfyre]

Insight is not your strong suit, Billy....

The Liberal establishment, the elites, endorse every one of the aims and designs of the Communist Party.
And, by giving them your vote......

....so do you.

Links please to ANY part of the Democratic Platform which endorses communal ownership of property, or government control of business or industry, or any major goal of communism?

And just as an additional comment, why do you feel it necessary to insult anyone who disagrees with your ideas. Are so lacking in self esteem that you must try to tear people down in order to feel good about yourself? Perhaps it's to cover the lack of real substance in your ideas. In either case, it cements the notion that you're immature and incapable of adult discussion.

PC = Petulant Child

I give you the U.S. tax code.
I give you the Affordable Care Act
I give you the Social Security Act
I give you Medicare
I give you Medicaid
I give you trillions of dollars of federal land held by the U.S. government.
I give you the EPA

I can go on and on, but each one of these presumes a government right to the private propety of the citizens or 'communal property'.