Test for the rightwing: tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

[Socialist]

You know what opinion really matters? The experts. Over 600 economists signed a letter urging congress to raise the minimum wage. 7 of them are Nobel prize winners. Be sure to read the last paragraph of the letter.

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

"July will mark five years since the federal minimum wage was last raised. We urge you to act now and enact a three-step raise of 95 cents a year for three years—which would mean a minimum wage of $10.10 by 2016—and then index it to protect against inflation. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative George Miller have introduced legislation to accomplish this. The increase to $10.10 would mean that minimum-wage workers who work full time, full year would see a raise from their current salary of roughly $15,000 to roughly $21,000. These proposals also usefully raise the tipped minimum wage to 70% of the regular minimum.

This policy would directly provide higher wages for close to 17 million workers by 2016. Furthermore, another 11 million workers whose wages are just above the new minimum would likely see a wage increase through “spillover” effects, as employers adjust their internal wage ladders. The vast majority of employees who would benefit are adults in working families, disproportionately women, who work at least 20 hours a week and depend on these earnings to make ends meet. At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.

In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

LOL, 600. Do you have any idea how many economists there are?

Suppose 600 pastors sign a letter to keep marriage between a man and woman? Would you say that's all that matters, that they said that?

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

So your standard is that whichever position has the most economists sign on is truth. Wow. Somehow if the liberals you support fall behind in that count, I'm thinking suddenly that won't be your standard anymore...

Um well see there's a little thing in the scientific field known as consensus. Consensus matters. Of course you still haven't provided proof a significant number of economists petitioned to not raise the miminum wage so I don't know why we are still talking about it.

You realize all you did is say what I said you said? You think truth is determined by majority vote.

How'd that turn out for Catholic Church with Galileo?

Idiotic example, you might as well ignore anything you disagree with on a personal level with your line of thinking. Wages are stagnant, productivity is at all time highs, the cost of living is continually increasing...

 

[Billy000]

You know what opinion really matters? The experts. Over 600 economists signed a letter urging congress to raise the minimum wage. 7 of them are Nobel prize winners. Be sure to read the last paragraph of the letter.

Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of 10.10 Minimum Wage Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage Economic Policy Institute

"July will mark five years since the federal minimum wage was last raised. We urge you to act now and enact a three-step raise of 95 cents a year for three years—which would mean a minimum wage of $10.10 by 2016—and then index it to protect against inflation. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative George Miller have introduced legislation to accomplish this. The increase to $10.10 would mean that minimum-wage workers who work full time, full year would see a raise from their current salary of roughly $15,000 to roughly $21,000. These proposals also usefully raise the tipped minimum wage to 70% of the regular minimum.

This policy would directly provide higher wages for close to 17 million workers by 2016. Furthermore, another 11 million workers whose wages are just above the new minimum would likely see a wage increase through “spillover” effects, as employers adjust their internal wage ladders. The vast majority of employees who would benefit are adults in working families, disproportionately women, who work at least 20 hours a week and depend on these earnings to make ends meet. At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum-wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.

In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

The experts opposed Obama's stimulus package. Were they right too?

Umm what experts? How many experts were in favor of it? Either way you have no idea what you are talking about so you should listen to the academics who are so clearly more intelligent than you.

That's hysterical, all of a sudden the number of them on each side matters to you, after the last one where all that mattered were how many agreed with you

Lol I don't even buy that a significant amount of academics opposed the stimulus. I'm curious do you even know what was in the stimulus?

We had to pass it to find out, and it turned out it was a bad idea. Warping free markets always is. That's how we got into the mess, and the solution of hair of the dog to get us out was the predictably stupid idea it sounded like

Lol half of the 787 billion was tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest cut since Reagan's. The other half was primarily the extension of uemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs to the Bush recession of 2008. This boosted consumer spending to people who would otherwise be dirt poor. In all, 3 million private jobs were created according to the CBO.

 

[The Rabbi]

The experts opposed Obama's stimulus package. Were they right too?

Umm what experts? How many experts were in favor of it? Either way you have no idea what you are talking about so you should listen to the academics who are so clearly more intelligent than you.

That's hysterical, all of a sudden the number of them on each side matters to you, after the last one where all that mattered were how many agreed with you

Lol I don't even buy that a significant amount of academics opposed the stimulus. I'm curious do you even know what was in the stimulus?

We had to pass it to find out, and it turned out it was a bad idea. Warping free markets always is. That's how we got into the mess, and the solution of hair of the dog to get us out was the predictably stupid idea it sounded like

Lol half of the 787 billion was tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest cut since Reagan's. The other half was primarily the extension of uemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs to the Bush recession of 2008. This boosted consumer spending to people who would otherwise be dirt poor. In all, 3 million private jobs were created according to the CBO.

It wasn t at ax cut. It was a giveaway. And it failed. And the CBO faked that figure.

 

[kaz]

LOL, 600. Do you have any idea how many economists there are?

Suppose 600 pastors sign a letter to keep marriage between a man and woman? Would you say that's all that matters, that they said that?

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

So your standard is that whichever position has the most economists sign on is truth. Wow. Somehow if the liberals you support fall behind in that count, I'm thinking suddenly that won't be your standard anymore...

Um well see there's a little thing in the scientific field known as consensus. Consensus matters. Of course you still haven't provided proof a significant number of economists petitioned to not raise the miminum wage so I don't know why we are still talking about it.

You realize all you did is say what I said you said? You think truth is determined by majority vote.

How'd that turn out for Catholic Church with Galileo?

Idiotic example, you might as well ignore anything you disagree with on a personal level with your line of thinking. Wages are stagnant, productivity is at all time highs, the cost of living is continually increasing...

I was addressing what I said I was addressing, billy's claim that truth is determined by majority vote. Not sure how you'd know I meant that. Well, other than that I told you that.

I'll discuss your points, but don't come in twisting my post to do it, just raise the points

 

[Billy000]

Umm what experts? How many experts were in favor of it? Either way you have no idea what you are talking about so you should listen to the academics who are so clearly more intelligent than you.

That's hysterical, all of a sudden the number of them on each side matters to you, after the last one where all that mattered were how many agreed with you

Lol I don't even buy that a significant amount of academics opposed the stimulus. I'm curious do you even know what was in the stimulus?

We had to pass it to find out, and it turned out it was a bad idea. Warping free markets always is. That's how we got into the mess, and the solution of hair of the dog to get us out was the predictably stupid idea it sounded like

Lol half of the 787 billion was tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest cut since Reagan's. The other half was primarily the extension of uemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs to the Bush recession of 2008. This boosted consumer spending to people who would otherwise be dirt poor. In all, 3 million private jobs were created according to the CBO.

It wasn t at ax cut. It was a giveaway. And it failed. And the CBO faked that figure.

No, you just can't accept being wrong. Grow up.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's hysterical, all of a sudden the number of them on each side matters to you, after the last one where all that mattered were how many agreed with you

Lol I don't even buy that a significant amount of academics opposed the stimulus. I'm curious do you even know what was in the stimulus?

We had to pass it to find out, and it turned out it was a bad idea. Warping free markets always is. That's how we got into the mess, and the solution of hair of the dog to get us out was the predictably stupid idea it sounded like

Lol half of the 787 billion was tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest cut since Reagan's. The other half was primarily the extension of uemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs to the Bush recession of 2008. This boosted consumer spending to people who would otherwise be dirt poor. In all, 3 million private jobs were created according to the CBO.

It wasn t at ax cut. It was a giveaway. And it failed. And the CBO faked that figure.

No, you just can't accept being wrong. Grow up.

Of course I can. But Im not here.
The adminstration made claims for what the stimulus would do for unemployment. It blew every one of those claims.
The "tax cuts" were things like cash for clunkers and first time homebuyers incentives, which did nothing but rob demand from the future.
And here is proof Elmendorf, the director of CBO, essentially faked the results.
Stimulus Jobs Count CBO Admits It Ignored the Economys Actual Performance

 

[Billy000]

Lol I don't even buy that a significant amount of academics opposed the stimulus. I'm curious do you even know what was in the stimulus?

We had to pass it to find out, and it turned out it was a bad idea. Warping free markets always is. That's how we got into the mess, and the solution of hair of the dog to get us out was the predictably stupid idea it sounded like

Lol half of the 787 billion was tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest cut since Reagan's. The other half was primarily the extension of uemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs to the Bush recession of 2008. This boosted consumer spending to people who would otherwise be dirt poor. In all, 3 million private jobs were created according to the CBO.

It wasn t at ax cut. It was a giveaway. And it failed. And the CBO faked that figure.

No, you just can't accept being wrong. Grow up.

Of course I can. But Im not here.
The adminstration made claims for what the stimulus would do for unemployment. It blew every one of those claims.
The "tax cuts" were things like cash for clunkers and first time homebuyers incentives, which did nothing but rob demand from the future.
And here is proof Elmendorf, the director of CBO, essentially faked the results.
Stimulus Jobs Count CBO Admits It Ignored the Economys Actual Performance

Lol good god. All this article is saying is that they ignored the unemployment rate. Their only claim is that 3 million jobs were created. Obviously that wasn't enough to offset the 8 million lost in the Great Recession you doofus.

 

[The Rabbi]

We had to pass it to find out, and it turned out it was a bad idea. Warping free markets always is. That's how we got into the mess, and the solution of hair of the dog to get us out was the predictably stupid idea it sounded like

Lol half of the 787 billion was tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class. The middle class tax cut was the biggest cut since Reagan's. The other half was primarily the extension of uemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs to the Bush recession of 2008. This boosted consumer spending to people who would otherwise be dirt poor. In all, 3 million private jobs were created according to the CBO.

It wasn t at ax cut. It was a giveaway. And it failed. And the CBO faked that figure.

No, you just can't accept being wrong. Grow up.

Of course I can. But Im not here.
The adminstration made claims for what the stimulus would do for unemployment. It blew every one of those claims.
The "tax cuts" were things like cash for clunkers and first time homebuyers incentives, which did nothing but rob demand from the future.
And here is proof Elmendorf, the director of CBO, essentially faked the results.
Stimulus Jobs Count CBO Admits It Ignored the Economys Actual Performance

Lol good god. All this article is saying is that they ignored the unemployment rate. Their only claim is that 3 million jobs were created. Obviously that wasn't enough to offset the 8 million lost in the Great Recession you doofus.

Thanks for admitting I was right and you were wrong and you have nothing to counter it with. Dont bother to thank me.

 

[Iceweasel]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics.

There's no such thing as the moderate left so the question is flawed. When is the last time you heard the phrase? I think this is my first.

Lefties think they shit special candy and can decide how everyone should run their lives. If they like it, you should like it. By law. They don't like it, it's illegal. Period!

 

[Socialist]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics.

There's no such thing as the moderate left so the question is flawed. When is the last time you heard the phrase? I think this is my first.

Lefties think they shit special candy and can decide how everyone should run their lives. If they like it, you should like it. By law. They don't like it, it's illegal. Period!

If we get to throw out ridiculous partisan bullshit, the rightwingers want to decide how people should run their lives. Let corporations run everything, privatize everything, fuck those in poverty and working families, love the wealthy, fuck women's rights, abortion should be illegal, I DON'T LIKE IT. Marijuana? ILLEGAL. Gay marriage? ILLEGAL. Come on man.

 

[The Rabbi]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics.

There's no such thing as the moderate left so the question is flawed. When is the last time you heard the phrase? I think this is my first.

Lefties think they shit special candy and can decide how everyone should run their lives. If they like it, you should like it. By law. They don't like it, it's illegal. Period!

If we get to throw out ridiculous partisan bullshit, the rightwingers want to decide how people should run their lives. Let corporations run everything, privatize everything, fuck those in poverty and working families, love the wealthy, fuck women's rights, abortion should be illegal, I DON'T LIKE IT. Marijuana? ILLEGAL. Gay marriage? ILLEGAL. Come on man.

And leftist scumbags want to regulate what you can eat, what you can drive, what you have to buy, what kind of toilet you can flush, whether to use a wood burning stove, what kind of lightbulb you can have etc etc.
Yeah, leftists are hypocritical scumbags.

 

[Socialist]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics.

There's no such thing as the moderate left so the question is flawed. When is the last time you heard the phrase? I think this is my first.

Lefties think they shit special candy and can decide how everyone should run their lives. If they like it, you should like it. By law. They don't like it, it's illegal. Period!

If we get to throw out ridiculous partisan bullshit, the rightwingers want to decide how people should run their lives. Let corporations run everything, privatize everything, fuck those in poverty and working families, love the wealthy, fuck women's rights, abortion should be illegal, I DON'T LIKE IT. Marijuana? ILLEGAL. Gay marriage? ILLEGAL. Come on man.

And leftist scumbags want to regulate what you can eat, what you can drive, what you have to buy, what kind of toilet you can flush, whether to use a wood burning stove, what kind of lightbulb you can have etc etc.
Yeah, leftists are hypocritical scumbags.

No, I really don't nor do many other leftists, regulate what you eat? Examples please. What you drive? I don't think tanks are legal, sorry. What kind of toilet you can flush? Evidence of this? Wood burning stove? People use them all the time, evidence leftists want to make it illegal? The lightbulb thing is funny, no one is forced, and clean energy, cheap lightbulbs are always a good thing. If you count EPA regulations, the endangered species act (Who was that passed by?) and such, sure, but if you don't want regulations, go to somalia, no taxes there, and no regulations, it's a paradise!

 

[Darkwind]

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

You really don't see it, do you?

Look at the highlighted red text.

How would it be utilized? Who would run it, or will it run itself? What people? What if other groups of people say no, that's not how its supposed to provide for us? What if a whole segment says, "Fuck this, we're not participating!" What about the people who get voted down? Will they grow resentment that they're not getting "Their Share"? How will the fruits of this alleged 'pooled labor' be distributed? Who will make an accounting of what is fair? Who will count the beans? Will Hawkeye and Lt. Dish ever hook up?

Utilized by democratic management, much like our current government is supposed to be. Then again, a market is a complex thing, nothing is ever perfect, People still say no in today's society to a variety of things, it still functions.

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

 

[Socialist]

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

You really don't see it, do you?

Look at the highlighted red text.

How would it be utilized? Who would run it, or will it run itself? What people? What if other groups of people say no, that's not how its supposed to provide for us? What if a whole segment says, "Fuck this, we're not participating!" What about the people who get voted down? Will they grow resentment that they're not getting "Their Share"? How will the fruits of this alleged 'pooled labor' be distributed? Who will make an accounting of what is fair? Who will count the beans? Will Hawkeye and Lt. Dish ever hook up?

Utilized by democratic management, much like our current government is supposed to be. Then again, a market is a complex thing, nothing is ever perfect, People still say no in today's society to a variety of things, it still functions.

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

 

[Darkwind]

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

You really don't see it, do you?

Look at the highlighted red text.

How would it be utilized? Who would run it, or will it run itself? What people? What if other groups of people say no, that's not how its supposed to provide for us? What if a whole segment says, "Fuck this, we're not participating!" What about the people who get voted down? Will they grow resentment that they're not getting "Their Share"? How will the fruits of this alleged 'pooled labor' be distributed? Who will make an accounting of what is fair? Who will count the beans? Will Hawkeye and Lt. Dish ever hook up?

Utilized by democratic management, much like our current government is supposed to be. Then again, a market is a complex thing, nothing is ever perfect, People still say no in today's society to a variety of things, it still functions.

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

Its anything but democracy. Besides, who really believes democracy is a good form of government? I'd rather not be controlled by "Mob Rule"......

How do you propose to get around that whole, "learning from the past" thing? Just not teach accurate history, or teach a "mob" approved version of history?

 

[Socialist]

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

You really don't see it, do you?

Look at the highlighted red text.

How would it be utilized? Who would run it, or will it run itself? What people? What if other groups of people say no, that's not how its supposed to provide for us? What if a whole segment says, "Fuck this, we're not participating!" What about the people who get voted down? Will they grow resentment that they're not getting "Their Share"? How will the fruits of this alleged 'pooled labor' be distributed? Who will make an accounting of what is fair? Who will count the beans? Will Hawkeye and Lt. Dish ever hook up?

Utilized by democratic management, much like our current government is supposed to be. Then again, a market is a complex thing, nothing is ever perfect, People still say no in today's society to a variety of things, it still functions.

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

Its anything but democracy. Besides, who really believes democracy is a good form of government? I'd rather not be controlled by "Mob Rule"......

How do you propose to get around that whole, "learning from the past" thing? Just not teach accurate history, or teach a "mob" approved version of history?

Realize mistakes always happen, and look at both positive/negative examples of socialism, realize what actual socialism is, and go from there.

 

[Darkwind]

You really don't see it, do you?

Look at the highlighted red text.

How would it be utilized? Who would run it, or will it run itself? What people? What if other groups of people say no, that's not how its supposed to provide for us? What if a whole segment says, "Fuck this, we're not participating!" What about the people who get voted down? Will they grow resentment that they're not getting "Their Share"? How will the fruits of this alleged 'pooled labor' be distributed? Who will make an accounting of what is fair? Who will count the beans? Will Hawkeye and Lt. Dish ever hook up?

Utilized by democratic management, much like our current government is supposed to be. Then again, a market is a complex thing, nothing is ever perfect, People still say no in today's society to a variety of things, it still functions.

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

Its anything but democracy. Besides, who really believes democracy is a good form of government? I'd rather not be controlled by "Mob Rule"......

How do you propose to get around that whole, "learning from the past" thing? Just not teach accurate history, or teach a "mob" approved version of history?

Realize mistakes always happen, and look at both positive/negative examples of socialism, realize what actual socialism is, and go from there.

I have, and I've rejected socialism as any kind of legitimate ideology.

Have a nice day.

 

[Socialist]

Utilized by democratic management, much like our current government is supposed to be. Then again, a market is a complex thing, nothing is ever perfect, People still say no in today's society to a variety of things, it still functions.

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

Its anything but democracy. Besides, who really believes democracy is a good form of government? I'd rather not be controlled by "Mob Rule"......

How do you propose to get around that whole, "learning from the past" thing? Just not teach accurate history, or teach a "mob" approved version of history?

Realize mistakes always happen, and look at both positive/negative examples of socialism, realize what actual socialism is, and go from there.

I have, and I've rejected socialism as any kind of legitimate ideology.

Have a nice day.

I've rejected fascism, have a nice day.

 

[Darkwind]

Oh, of course. Special people, who will help the rest of us.....

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

Its anything but democracy. Besides, who really believes democracy is a good form of government? I'd rather not be controlled by "Mob Rule"......

How do you propose to get around that whole, "learning from the past" thing? Just not teach accurate history, or teach a "mob" approved version of history?

Realize mistakes always happen, and look at both positive/negative examples of socialism, realize what actual socialism is, and go from there.

I have, and I've rejected socialism as any kind of legitimate ideology.

Have a nice day.

I've rejected fascism, have a nice day.

That's good. I have as well. Along with communism, and any radicalized left leaning ideology.

I'll stick with the classic liberal ideology of a free nation which empowers the individual. Oh, and in case you missed it, an empowered individual is how capitalism works.

buh bye.

 

[Socialist]

I'm pretty sure people can help themselves, it's called democracy.

Its anything but democracy. Besides, who really believes democracy is a good form of government? I'd rather not be controlled by "Mob Rule"......

How do you propose to get around that whole, "learning from the past" thing? Just not teach accurate history, or teach a "mob" approved version of history?

Realize mistakes always happen, and look at both positive/negative examples of socialism, realize what actual socialism is, and go from there.

I have, and I've rejected socialism as any kind of legitimate ideology.

Have a nice day.

I've rejected fascism, have a nice day.

That's good. I have as well. Along with communism, and any radicalized left leaning ideology.

I'll stick with the classic liberal ideology of a free nation which empowers the individual. Oh, and in case you missed it, an empowered individual is how capitalism works.

buh bye.

Fascism is a right wing ideology. Capitalism has led to colonialism, imperialism, slavery, wage slavery, child labor, the crushing of women, destruction of the earth, I'm good, thanks.