Terminology

[Animal]

From what I understand, different people have different terms to describe essentially the same phenomena.

There is this phenomenon people recognize: government expansion, less power to the people. Some people call it "the road to communism" while others call it "capitalism." If you say "communism" then people accuse you of being brainwashed by Fox News rhetoric. If you say "Capitalism" then people accuse you of being brainwashed by radical leftists.

So, how are you supposed to address the phenomenon itself without getting into a right vs left word war?

I try to specify that to me, communism, crony capitalism and fascism may have different internal setups- but they all leave the citizens powerless against a big group of elites. Still there is argument as we speak, over where the line is. Some papers claim China is crony capitalist, some call it communist, and the argument rages on.

The same thing happens with the Nazis. We argue on and on over whether they were socialists or capitalists, right or left.

Honestly. I am trying to talk about a phenomenon. I call them "the left" because they run democrat or "the right" because they run conservative. You could say Obama is a capitalist, Trump is a New York liberal....

But when do we get to address the issues?

I know it's important to be precise but let's face it - this difference in vocab is another result of the very divide we are trying to overcome. If we can't even get past that and we just argue about words all day, will we ever move forward?

I have run into this issue so many times, I've been posting about it on facebook all week. I figured I'd run it by this crowd. How do we get past this?

Please don't say "educate yourself" because most of us are educated enough to grasp something this basic. The problem is, it depends where you get your education. But if we all see the same overarching trends, how do we discuss them without this getting in the way?

[Tsenjin]

[Tsenjin]

In America, the conservative narrative is :
"Them communists were bad guys. They lost the Cold War.
Capitalism (the good guys) won it."
Of course, it's propaganda bs.
Not only because communists weren't that bad.
Not only because "we" aren't that good.
Not only because it's a childish "happy ending" story.
But because capitalism didn't win the Cold War at all.
It died trying, in the same way the soviet system died trying. And for the exact same reasons.
Ironically, the same day Francis Fukuyama, contemplating the victory of the West, boldly declared that it was "the end of History".
To "win", capitalism had to transition into something else.
It spend 45 years becoming more and more like his twinemy.
And at the end of the day, the militaro-industrial complex won. (cf the Einsenhower speech Robin posted in Ariadne's Thread^^)

[Animal]

I don't know.. that's not anything close to the conservative narrative I've heard in America. It sounds like the liberal propaganda I've heard misconstruing the conservative narrative, actually But maybe I'm just crazy. Nonetheless other countries have access to some of our news stations but as far as I understand, not Fox or the ones that actually represent the view of the right, so all you hear is the left pontificating about the right and twisting it.

[Animal]

The conservatives don't view our current society as capitalist. It's currently crony capitalist, with big businesses in bed with government, and this group running everything together, which is very far from free market capitalism or Ayn Rand style capitalism. This over simplistic black and white fantasy story you say the conservatives have, is in itself a fantasy, as such a story does not actually come from Conservatives - but rather from liberals trying to frame them as idiots. It's demeaning toward them, not really listening or comprehending them.

Many would view your post as biased propaganda. That's the thing. You think people believe something they don't and you try to convince me this stupid inane narrative is what they believe, but "don't worry things are more complex." Well really it sounds like many leftists have a complex answer to questions and ideas that conservatives are not saying. Still no actual listening.

Crony capitalism is a bad idea - everyone agrees on this. However it's only leftists who are mired in their own world view, who try to frame this as simply "capitalism" or to claim that conservatives want it. Of course when you frame it that way then conservatives seem like morons and capitalism seems like a bad idea. But it couldn't be further from what the constitution stood for, which limited the power of government to make room for regular people to build themselves up through small business and merit. This is generally what conservatives claim to want, even if not all Republican governors are excellent at upholding it.

But any conservative hearing your framing of their supposed point of view would say it clearly comes from "propaganda" as well - which, based on my experience is a fair assumption. You're not the first leftist from Europe who I've heard stating similar ideas about what American conservatives supposedly think and using the word capitalism to describe something very far from it, to frame the conservatives as "black and white" and stupid. I've heard this narrative about America coming from all over Europe and I know it's because the American media that they have access to is absolutely biased toward extreme left (or anti-right) narratives, which is unfortunate since now this is synonymous with corruption, special interests, brainwashing and Soros money. This is a problem conservatives are generally aware of, and currently the bigshots on the right are brainstorming on how to get people across the world to access a more realistic portrayal of what they believe. Bottom line is whatever you think you know about US "conservatives" view on Capitalism, you don't - until you actually immerse yourself in their side of the story rather than just short clips posted out of context on Leftist Soros stations.

So I am really interested in hearing your point of view on meanings and philosophies and how to fix the world, but sorry, your attempt to frame something as conservative propaganda won't work here... people here know too much. I do appreciate the insight on the latest European leftist propaganda about them though. And I am curious what it is that you consider leftist propaganda? And what do leftists - or you yourself - think about the government models at hand? I am really not interested in leftists telling me what the right believes (let alone Europeans telling me how America works) - this never ends well and betrays "anti" type of sentiments rather than positive sentiments such as solutions.

I was looking for a way to bridge the gap in communication. Narratives about things that other people supposedly believe - which none of the Trump supporters for instance on this website have ever come close to saying - only widens the gap. Who are these supposed American conservatives who would say "yes you're right, thats the propaganda I've been fed, thanks for enlightening me?" Have you actually met one? Or are these characters you learned about on the news? When I have confronted leftists around here about the propaganda, I respond to things they said directly - and I can do that because I live among these people and deal with them every day. I am responding to real people and a real narrative that these humans have perpetuated right to my face, in real life. European leftists often have a lot to say about what American conservatives believe, but they tend to be patriotic and don't generally move to Europe by the masses. So anything you think you know about them, I recommend you keep questioning.

[Tsenjin]

Oh god. I forgot Conservative is actually a political label people identify with, on your side of the Atlantic.
And it has a completely different meaning in your political landscape and in mine.

I was using this word in a much broader and less political meaning.
"conservative narrative" as in "reasonably optimistic / moderate scenario".
The basic idea that capitalism (regardless of its variants) has proven its superiority over communism, and "won" the Cold War is an underlying assumption shared by both side of the center, and quite largely on the whole spectrum.

Of course Conservative (capital C this time) aren't happy with the current statu quo, and realize that the ideals associated with capitalism have been betrayed and distorted in many ways. I'm well aware of that. And i think they are right, btw.

My point was simply that this isn't "capitalism-as-we-used-to-know-it" anymore.
The Cold War give birth to something new, and quite monstruous. The militaro-industrial complex.
And it's the reality that both sides have to face and understand to be able adapt their frame to current times.

[Animal]

I don't know whether the writers of those articles are anti-conservative or what, but the type of conservatives I have heard, and the type of people Trump appealed to in order to get the vote, basically say things like this. That there's no difference between crony capitalism, communism and fascism in effect.

I just picked these articles randomly on a duck-duck-go search.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...talism-nothing

"When it comes to the real world, the difference between fascism, communism and crony-capitalism is semantic. Let's start with everyone's favorite hot-word, fascism, which Italian dictator Benito Mussolini defined as "the merger of state and corporate power." In other words, the state and corporate cartels are one system.

Real-world communism, for example as practiced in the People's Republic of China, boils down to protecting a thoroughly corrupt elite and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The state prohibits anything that threatens the profits (and bribes) of SOEs--for example, taxi-apps that enable consumers to bypass the SOE cab companies."

This is the type of narrative that permeates conservative dialogue I have heard. Maybe I'm missing something.

[SpiritoftheGael]

Animal there was "propaganda" spread by the US about the glory of capitalism during the Cold War. I haven't heard current conservatives talk about it really, but I do remember seeing the videos. My dad played one once. I would say that generally the right believes capitalism is superior but they are referring to a specific form of it. Russia went towards form of capitalism in the 90s, and I can tell you right now, it's not what the conservatives would ever want if you were to talk about it with them. There was very very little in the way of regulation, and competitors were literally burning each other's businesses etc, so basically it was anarcho-capitalism I guess (I don't know if that's the correct term). I'd have to find sources on it. I just remember my Russian history professor talking about it. But basically I hear the right say a lot of things, but if you if actually dig into what they actually want they want a specific form of capitalism founded on the constitution with certain regulations like antitrust laws.

[Animal]

I see. Thanks Arya - I was having trouble placing this in perspective. I agree about if you dig into what they want that's what it is. That's what I was trying to get at. But I don't think they consider the current USA to be that.

[Animal]

This sounds to me like a conservative talking about capitalism and how people see it. Let's see what he has to say about it.

I haven't heard this particular video yet, but I'm going to bet he draws a strong distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism (how the left paints "capitalism"). Let's see, listening now.

[Animal]

Yes, listening now... Shapiro clarifies that 'crony capitalism' is the wrong term for it -- and that the thing the left is calling "capitalism" should not be called capitalism at all. He clarifies that the right DOES call this "crony capitalism" and differentiates it from capitalism. But that the meaning has been twisted by the left, and the right has taken to describing it as "crony capitalism" which is misleading, and the public doesn't know what it is.

This is closer to the conservative "narrative" that I hear coming from real people. (He cleared up the terms in a way I didn't realize.) . "Capitalism itself is slandered in the media - so any time there's a greedy plutocrat that makes a deal with the government, any time wall street gets rich off an insider crony deal with congress, instead of people responding by saying 'that's not capitalism,' even the right will respond by calling it crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is not a real term. Crony capitalism is the reverse of capitalism. It is actually called CORPORATISM. There is no reason to describe anything as crony capitalism because capitalism is about the free investment in exchange of goods. But the right never describes capitalism that way and so [the young people are confused...] " ... etc.

[Animal]

Here's a major huge conservative voice. True conservatives all over the country, especially older ones, listen to him. Again, I haven't heard this video yet but let's see what he says. The caption says "Americans Are Fleeing Obama's Crony Capitalist Economy."

[Animal]

He associates Wall street bail outs with Obama and his administration.

[Animal]

"The Socialist marxist Obama realizing he can't go that way..." [so instead he goes for Crony Capitalism]

[Animal]

I don't listen to Limbaugh by the way. I just know that older conservatives listen to him and for a long time he represented the "[far] right narrative."

[Animal]

Many conservatives agree with Glenn Beck's view that Woodrow Wilson was one of many leftists who helped to turn the country toward progressivism, which he says here is 'marxism' slowly infiltrating the country. I just searched out this video but I've seen long history documentaries on things like this. He does not believe that capitalism "won" after the cold war - because he and many of the other conservatives believe the progressives had already started spreading their agenda through the country since long before that.

Many also believe the Democrats have ties to the Nazis and more. The man in this video, Dinesh D'Souza, made a movie called "America" which details the "conservative narrative" quite thoroughly, and he talks about progressive infiltration from the left since long before the cold war.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2785390/


None of these people believe capitalism "won." They see the growing socialism/progressivism/marxism/"Crony Capitalism" as being the fault of the progressives, and they lump Obama and the Democrat machine with this, though it goes back much much further into history. Shapiro outlines that this phenomenon should not even be called Crony capitalism, it should be called Corporatism.

[Animal]

The caption:

What is Marxism apart from Marxists? Every regime professing socialism has taken over private industry and established government control of it, going all the way back to Lenin.

[Animal]

Love it or hate it, "The Conservative Narrative" has roots very different from what is being presented here. The movie "America" echoes a lot of conservative beliefs.. at least a summary. I am not saying I agree with every last idea (I have a lot of research to do before I'd go that far).... but I do know that the basis of the narrative is not about "capitalism" having "won" after the Cold war. There may be some young, sideline conservatives saying things like this, but O'reilley, Huckabee, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, D'Souza - these are big voices behind "The Conservative Narrative" - and I have trouble finding a basic commonality between their collective narrative (with all its minor differences between them) and the one above.

To sum it up simply: The most prominent Conservatives, for a long time, have believed Capitalism was eroded by Progressive Leftists who infiltrated the education system, the media and the government - creating a system that some call 'Crony Capitalism' and which Shapiro calls 'Corporatism,' which they differentiate from Free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is what they equate with Liberty, but what has been going on for the past century is considered by most conservatives to be a Progressive agenda insidiously pushing us toward socialism and communism -- and they see crony capitalism or corporatism as part of this agenda.

[Animal]

And note that I did not 'parrot' or 'regurgitate' any of this. I came up with a very similar narrative by myself (based on real life experience with school & lyme & humans) --- before getting acquainted with Beck or D'Souza (both of whom I disagree with on many points and even aspects of their world view). The other conservatives I posted, I haven't attended to them much but I know they're important voices on that side because I talk to real conservatives from all over the country.

[Animal]

I didn't say the conservatives were free of horseshit. Not sure where you got that. However right now I do believe the current right has the moral high ground - what with the impeachment fiasco and the fight against identity politics taking over everything. But that is just one moment in time. As far as their merit toward everyone over all time, I don't believe either party has the moral high ground in an over arching way. Rather, I believe the outcome of conservative vision is more pragmatic.

However that's not what I was talking about whatsoever. I was talking about my understanding of the conservatives' overarching stance in the past many decades.

Of course they do think free market capitalism - but not crony capitalism - is a better choice than any kind of collectivism - but they don't think it "won" since the Cold War as far as I know. I happen to agree with them that something closer to free market capitalism is better than the alternatives - but that is not why I say they have the current moral high ground.

The moral high ground on the current playing field is something that turns with the tide. It depends who is running things etc. So this cannot be attributed to any one 'party.' However I don't vote based on some abstract idea of someone else's morals. I vote on results. I don't feel that I have the luxury to vote based on ideology while my life is at stake. Besides, no one upholds their morals perfectly, and no one's inner ethical ideology comes close to matching mine, except maybe Daeva . So when it comes to politicians, I look for results.

And that brings me to my biggest issue with this: the moral high ground was not the topic at hand. Thats a whole other conversation. On this thread I was trying to clear up miscommunications about what communism is, along with crony capitalism, fascism etc - and what each side actually thinks about it. So I am not sure why we're talking about morals? The point is to communicate more clearly what the terminology means. Talking about morals is more like 'philosophy' or 'ethics...' and I don't see much room for a genuine discussion about that when the media frames the conservative view point falsely and distorts what they actually stand for.

Here, I attempted to clear up my understanding of where they stand, not to defend them morally. That's a whole other philosophical conversation that I'm not sure I'm interested in having, but if I did I'd approach it very differently than, say, posting videos of Rush Limbaugh. I also see my own morality as a separate issue from conservative morality, or liberal morality. My morality is not a paragon of conservatism or liberalism, and I'm not particularly moved by promises, hope and change when it comes to evaluating politicians. So to me the discussion of morality is confusing and there is no solid premise on which to have it when it comes to real events. It's conjecture about someone's inner goodness or what they 'really want' in some non-existent ideal world. But when do we get to establish that the MSM (and consequently, the person I was talking to in the moment) are depicting the Conservative narrative differently than how the conservatives themselves depict it? That's all I was trying to say.

When it comes to morals it's unlikely you and I will see eye to eye anyway. We can see eye to eye on being an honest, compassionate decent human being, regardless of whether someone agrees with our world view. But as far as I understand, our world views about "ideal solutions" are very far apart. Which is fine. I don't think yours is inherently "morally inferior." I am just a "Constitutionalist." On a purely emotional moral sense I err on the side of libertarianism and away from Socialism, and I understand the real implications of this. My ideas about the goodness or badness of capitalism are probably very different from yours and it's very unlikely that on this, one of us will ever sway the other. So that's why I don't see the point in debating whether one ideology is more moral than the other. Although if we are going to dissect the morality of different ideologies, I'd prefer to have a pointed effort toward that end, like a thread on that topic. But if the thread is about rating entire ideologies on a scale of good and evil, then it's unlikely I'd participate much because I find it to be somewhat disingenuous. All ideologies in their purest form have a moral backbone. For example fascism is about productivity, order, etc.

So why evaluate each ideology based on how moral it is - instead of on results and the current state of affairs? This really confuses me. Someone out there will find great morality in fascism, communism and so forth --- so there's nothing to debate except "how it has actually played out historically." Or just pointing a finger and saying someone else is a bad person. But then we get into "you're racist because you're against Obamacare" type of stuff. I am really not fond of the liberals OR conservatives framing others as a 'bad person' when they don't agree. For example if I'm pro-choice then I'm a murderer and if I'm pro-life then I'm an internalized misogynist. Why??!

The phenomenon of identity politics started out for 'good' and now it's being weaponized for 'bad.' And so on. No particular ideology or movement can be pinned as 'good' or 'evil.' Which is why I really don't appreciate moral high-ground arguments when it comes to beliefs. It's one thing to say "it's wrong to treat someone this way" - but another to say "If you think Obamacare is bad then you're racist and don't care about the poor." Essentially "If you don't agree with me you're a bad person." This approach, in itself, is... amoral.

[Animal]

Yes, I believe right now the left has become abusive as a whole. I see that many people on the left like yourself, Tulsi and others are seeing through it and addressing it. I believe this will shift. In the past there were times the right was more abusive. Is there something so bad about saying that?

[Animal]

It's really not as complicated as "I think the Conservatives overall are more moral, always have been and always will be." That would be a bold statement and I'd be amazed if ANYONE could back that up let alone me.

[Tsenjin]

Lots to read. And no way i 'll be able to comment on everything you guys posted. But i would like to adress a few thins.

But any conservative hearing your framing of their supposed point of view would say it clearly comes from "propaganda" as well - which, based on my experience is a fair assumption. You're not the first leftist from Europe who I've heard stating similar ideas about what American conservatives supposedly think and using the word capitalism to describe something very far from it, to frame the conservatives as "black and white" and stupid. I've heard this narrative about America coming from all over Europe and I know it's because the American media that they have access to is absolutely biased toward extreme left (or anti-right) narratives, which is unfortunate since now this is synonymous with corruption, special interests, brainwashing and Soros money. This is a problem conservatives are generally aware of, and currently the bigshots on the right are brainstorming on how to get people across the world to access a more realistic portrayal of what they believe. Bottom line is whatever you think you know about US "conservatives" view on Capitalism, you don't - until you actually immerse yourself in their side of the story rather than just short clips posted out of context on Leftist Soros stations.

I'm indeed an european. And i might very well be a leftist.
But i'm neither naive nor new to this.
And as a matter of fact, i actually did just that. Immerse myself in their side of the story.
Remember that stuff i posted on the topic about our relationship with God ?
I initally wrote that for an hardcore calvinist from the Religious Right i've been talking to and exchanging with for years.
I've spent years discussing politics and geopolitics on various boards largely dominated by the american Right, including its radical elements.
Austrian schooler minarchists, Randians, libertarians of all subspecies, religious ultraconservative, etc.
That's actually how i learned to write english.

If i jumped on this topic it's PRECISELY because the question "how do we overcome the divide" is of prime interest for me. And has been for decades.

I know full well that this particular subset of the subset of the Right think that what we have now isn't capitalism.
They are defining capitalism in political and theoretical terms, not refering to an historically situated existing system.
Under this definition, they can indeed say that whatever America has now isn't capitalism and that capitalism, as they intend it, has never been fully tried and achieved.
And i'm inclined to agree with that.

But the thing is, if they are entitled to this kind of definition, and this specific conclusion, then the far left ALSO has every right to say that communism, as it is theoretically defined, has never been fully tried and has not been "proven wrong" by History. And that whatever Soviet Russia was, it wasn't communism.

Anyway, it wasn't my intention to frame their belief in any way, because i was not specifically talking about THEM at all.

I was just trying to point at a specific moment in History (the last years of the Cold War), and at a very specific thing : the militaro-industrial complex.
Because in my opinion, it's by pointing there that we have a (slight) chance to overcome the divide.
This militaro-industrial complex fits every criteria to be the common enemy, and the common target of the healthy and critically part of the Left AND the Right. And also the vast MASS of people who do not recognize themselves in any of the 2 main teamz, and either do not vote anymore or cast their hopeless vote for independant candidates.
(And as Robin pointed out, the healthy and critically thinking part of the Left STILL exists, if anything, in the Chicago Youth).

It really does NOT matter at all if one is a communist, an anti-capitalist anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, a small state libertarian, or EVEN a religious conservative with theocratic tendencies, or simply a disgrunted citizen
None of the above groups will be in a position to impose his own pet utopia to the majority anytime soon.
And in the meantime, ALL of the groups are fucked up on a daily basis by the Big Delta Machine.

Speaking of which, interesting things are happening here, in France, right now.
People of the radical left and the far right have been bonding together like never before.
They have been wearing the same Yellow Vests for a year now.
Occupying roundabouts together.
Going on strike together.
Of course, they will probably vote separetely next time.
But still, it's something and it's interesting to watch.
No leader, no ideology, a common ennemy.

In the words of one of the most brilliant intellectual of the french "New Right" (technically a neo-pagan ethnodifferentialist )

[Animal]

Makes sense - I think I misunderstood where you were going with the first post. I will answer soon!!

[Tsenjin]

Robin Jayne Goldsmith That's right. This election was pure blackmail. "It's me or fascism". The thing is... ALL our elections have been like that, to a degree or another, since the 90s. A whole generation of people grew up without having the opportunity to vote by choice. Not even once. "Voting against" is all they have ever known. So now, they are trying to invent other ways to be heard.

[Animal]

Lots to read. And no way i 'll be able to comment on everything you guys posted. But i would like to adress a few thins.
If i jumped on this topic it's PRECISELY because the question "how do we overcome the divide" is of prime interest for me. And has been for decades.

Sorry I had misinterpreted your first post. I see this now.

I know full well that this particular subset of the subset of the Right think that what we have now isn't capitalism.
They are defining capitalism in political and theoretical terms, not refering to an historically situated existing system.
Under this definition, they can indeed say that whatever America has now isn't capitalism and that capitalism, as they intend it, has never been fully tried and achieved.
And i'm inclined to agree with that.

But the thing is, if they are entitled to this kind of definition, and this specific conclusion, then the far left ALSO has every right to say that communism, as it is theoretically defined, has never been fully tried and has not been "proven wrong" by History. And that whatever Soviet Russia was, it wasn't communism.

I agree with this overall, that you can't allow one claim but not the other. However, I think the right does believe that what they want has been tried before - and worked. The foundation of the idea, as far as I grasp it (and I'm not.. you know.. a political scientist) ... is that America was intended to be a Republic, but that now it's falling. They believe that for centuries it was much closer to this ideal of a free market republic - and that it did work. It's the left that thinks it didn't work - and they slipped this opinion into the public dialogue, disguising it as an indisputable "fact."

I don't think the right overall has aimed for a 'perfectly' free market. Ayn Rand might, but she's an extremist in that regard, and more of an emblem of that ideal. The American Right, rather, sees the republic as the ideal form of government, and the free market would be the natural result of that. It's all in the name: "Republican" . I've seen videos like that going around quite a bit over the years.

My understanding is that the Radical left and progressives got seduced by Marxist theory. They believed capitalism (and the constitution's Republic) didn't work, and sought to change it. You can see this today, considering the left has slogans like "hope and change." On the right, it's "make America great again" - as it once was. This is because capitalism "worked" (according to them).

Over the course of the 1900s, the radical left infiltrated the media and the education system, perpetuating certain ideas. This was not an accident - there was a plan to infiltrate. One blueprint was written in Rules for Radicals, written by radical progressive activist Saul Alinsky. (He was Hillary Clinton's mentor.)

The narrative changed from "America is great" and "land of opportunity" to "evil rich white men." Basically, the Left pushed the idea that capitalism didn't work, because its success rested upon slavery, oppression of women, etc. As the ideas took hold over the course of the century, the left assumed moral superiority. It was considered morally reprehensible to be a capitalist, because you were discounting the oppressed people who were not allowed to reap the rewards of capitalism.

The school history books changed in the 1920s with the President Woodrow Wilson. I don't remember if it was him or subsequent changes, but over time they took out any black heroes from the war stories, left out the many black success stories, framed white people as 'bad' because of slavery and conquest of Mexico etc. Of course, there is truth to this and I'm not implying there isn't, but people choose how they will frame history. This type of framing instills the unconscious idea that black people are unsuccessful, hopeless and weak; whereas white people are mean, evil and oppressive. Both parties feel this divide.

The radicals were essentially Marxists, trying to undermine Capitalism, and the best way to do that was to instill White Guilt. Soon enough, we were piling on welfare, affirmative action etc - and Capitalism was done for. The left had claimed moral superiority, even though the Republican party first broke away from the Democratic-Republican party for the sake of freeing the slaves from the Democrats. The Republicans were framed as anti-black because they were pro-capitalist and thus supposedly overlooking the horrors of slavery. And thus we have the narrative that 'capitalism never worked,' but this is not coming from the right. And now that USA has been coopted by what Shapiro calls corporatism, the left can call it "capitalism" and say "See, it doesn't work." But this is dishonest framing.

I mean, it's honest to say that it doesn't work if that's what you believe, but it's dishonest to pretend that this current world of corporatism is the same as free market capitalism and to claim that the Republicans' idea of a working system hasn't been tried yet. The term 'crony capitalism' only serves to confuse things, because as Dinesh D'Souza explained so well, this type of corporate-in-bed-with-government model has historically been a prelude to Communism. And it certainly is not what the Republicans believe has 'worked.' There may be some big-government Republicans, but the party at root is Conservative, and thus Constitutionalist. (Conserving the Republic and the Constitution.) The left wants progress, amendments, hope & change.

I'm not saying you specifically are dishonest. It's the media and the indoctrination, and the misappropriation of terms in the media propaganda.. which I am aiming to address here. It should not be so difficult to distinguish the current climate from free market capitalism, but the Left has cleverly coopted terms so that nothing has any meaning anymore. The denial that gender exists has turned into a trap to force people out of work. "Ze, zir and zim" is distracting and discombobulating, and this is how the leftist media coopts the dialogue - they make it so that nothing is clearly defined and everyone has to play along with their ever-changing terminology or else they're morally inferior and uneducated. I don't play along with this - to me, definitions are much more simple. Things are what they are. And the denial that there's a fundamental systemic difference between "Crony capitalism" and Capitalism - is pure propaganda. And Shapiro is right to assign "crony capitalism" a completely different term. I would rather call it "Pre-communism" but it's not up to me, is it? I mean, why isn't it up to me if any news station can just call it whatever they want?

It really does NOT matter at all if one is a communist, an anti-capitalist anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, a small state libertarian, or EVEN a religious conservative with theocratic tendencies, or simply a disgrunted citizen
None of the above groups will be in a position to impose his own pet utopia to the majority anytime soon.
And in the meantime, ALL of the groups are fucked up on a daily basis by the Big Delta Machine.

I agree that none of the above groups should impose their pet utopia, which is why I prefer the model of a Republic who is ruled by a constitution which limits the reach of government. This way everyone can live according to his or her own ideals. They can form small communities if they want, and not force it on the rest of the country. It's not a utopia, but it's a way to limit an overreaching 'big delta machine' imposing its values of the moment upon us all.

(And as Robin pointed out, the healthy and critically thinking part of the Left STILL exists, if anything, in the Chicago Youth).

I agree that they exist, but this does not save the country from the takeover of the indoctrinated Leftist masses. Currently, Leftists are moving out of the blue states en masse - whose economies were ruined by governors they elected - and moving to red states, where things are more affordable due to the policies, only to vote for more Democrats. Isn't this imposing their personal utopia on the whole country? I consider it a threat to the country's integrity. If they take over Texas, the Democratic Institution won't have any opposition left that is capable of challenging them. Then the whole nation's economy will look like NY and California, and people will be begging for their big government goodies.


I'm going to respond to the rest soon.