If this is a leftover from communism, when was the left wing in the US a non-communist communist party?
So you stand corrected, above.
So objecting to the racism inherent in blackface is not an invention of PC sensibility - calling "PC" is just an excuse from racist Trump voters who don't like being called racist.
The reason you "see" such idiotic delusions is that you are ignorant of the physical facts. And you aren't paying attention to the content of my posts, of course (in which no definition of fascism appears - merely a basic checklist of characteristics, a minimum set of criteria).
And you - ignorantly falling for the frame - not only accepted Goldberg's category of "liberal", but immediately made the jump to "left", as Goldberg's paymasters expected. That's called getting played, sucker.
Time to start. That ignorance is crippling you.
Now you have abandoned the original categories, "left" or "liberal" or whatever you pulled out of the fog, and invoked "SJWs" - just like a Fox News pundit -
I don't. Why are you trying to imply that I do?
That's not true. That's not how you have been using the term here, for example - and guys like you (victims of wingnut propaganda) are the main users of the term.
And another cat emerges from the bag.
I don't vote. I don't vote even in Germany, where I would have the right to vote. Anyway, I'm not living in a place where I have a right to vote.
Was there any relevant communist party in the US?
It is essentially irrelevant for free market capitalism.
Don't cry. Why should I care? I'm in favor of a free market, not of monopolies. Monopolies exist mainly because of government regulations favoring them. Without copyright and patents - artificial government monopolies - there would be much fewer monopolies. Regulations, which require a lot of paperwork for every firm, favor big firms, even if they are not written by the lobbyists themselves. And so on. Without the state behind them, the few natural monopolies would remain quite weak.
????????????? Please quote what you think has been "corrected".
As usual, I see no big difference. My impression is that there was some time in the past when the right was in favor of censorship, and the left favored free speech. Today, the more serious attack against free speech comes from the left. And the only ones who are in favor of free speech are irrelevant libertarians.
Being called a racist was quite irrelevant in the past. Today you risk getting fired for such a namecalling. So, it is quite natural that people don't like this.
BTW, it is quite interesting to observe the civilized behavior of all those PC defenders.
The problem being? We are discussing here quite different things. SJWs are clear enough from the left, not?
I have been name-called by you a lot of time, always without any base in reality, I have seen you discussing the race-IQ relations, they were full of similar namecalling attacks. But, of course, your namecalling is always simply stating the facts, LOL.
Maybe they were clever criminals. but all those guys who started wars killing millions are certainly criminals. Namely war criminals. If they have not "ruled" you by starting such wars with your taxes, you may be, of course, an accomplice. Why not, murdering foreigners and receiving control over oil and other resources may be a reasonable (even if criminal) choice for most of the US population.
I can tell some differences, but, indeed, the base is that essentially all politicians are criminals. There has to be evidence that a particular politician is not to modify this basic assumption. But fine that you have, at least, understood the base of my "tolerance" for Trump (in comparison with the war criminal Hillary).
ROTFL. YMMD.
Plenty of base in reality. You are ignorant of it, of course. You can't even distinguish namecalling - which I do very little of - from observation.
And you are interchanging quite different terms - exactly, as I pointed out, according to Goldberg's agenda. You are now incapable of posting - or, probably, thinking - outside Goldberg's frame.
The folks who use that silly term seem to have defined it that way, sure.
To be clear: that they are equivalently criminal. That the differences between them are minor.
Without governmental curbs on their power, industrial corporations would enslave you as they have others.
Silly assertion made in ignorance of US political history, as always. Fantasy bubble paranoia from the US wingnut propaganda feed, as always.
In modern times most of those would be corporate capitalists, not politicians. Look at the Iraq War.
I have always understood it - you presented it clearly. Your base is not in reality, is your problem. You fell for wingnut propaganda regarding Hillary, and you are so far in thrall to US media and marketing pros that you are unable to even recognize fascism in Trump - much less acknowledge its implications.
No. They would have to become states or state-like organizations to do this. There is, of course, the thesis that without a state there will appear automatically new players who try to become the new state. Nice excuse, of the type it is better if the father rapes the daughter first than somebody else.
W started it. With the support of corporate capitalists, of course. But it was, nonetheless, a politician. Then, those who have opposed it have continued to stay there when they get power. A little bit withdrawing, then coming back. Same today with Trump. Some claims of withdrawing, but in fact an increase. All the same. It's not elected politicians who rule the game, its somebody else, usually named deep state. The wars continue, independent of any elections. Faked democracy.
You're full of BS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
You are so hopelessly naive, or intentionally duplicitous, it is actually a little scary.
Just like here in the US. What's the problem? No automatic enrollment...?...... for shame!
You are welcome to call them "state-like organizations", if you insist, or even "banana republics" ( "banana" refers to a corporation). Their enslavement of you would not be affected by your label.
You do. You support Trump over Clinton, for example.
The Iraq War was a direct consequence of electing W - a Republican administration - instead of Gore.
It wasn't his idea, and he was incapable of launching it himself (lacked the executive ability). He was a figurehead.
That is not true. For example, Obama withdrew - substantially, not just a little bit - from Iraq. And he had to work against opposition, to do it.
You are going to have to make up your mind, some day. You can blame "politicians", or you can blame the "deep state" you have no idea of (hint: corporate capitalism).
But ever relevant. Seems Capitalism is also overrated.......
It has nothing to do with unrestricted capitalism, it is about state-regulated capitalism, corporatism, where the lobbies of the big business write the regulations in their own favor.
Don't cry. In a libertarian society, if some chemical firm harms people, they have to pay compensation. That you have a problem understanding that big firms can in a corporate capitalist society use the government power to reach much more than they would be able to reach without a state is your problem.
Nice to hear that you hope to benefit from social programs, but in the average, social programs are a loss, so you will pay more taxes than gaining from social programs.
If your greed is so great that it needs to be restricted by Big Government, you have a serious problem.
And another guy disqualifies himself with personal attacks. Iceaura seems quite successful to teach people to stop arguments and start personal attacks.You are so hopelessly naive, or intentionally duplicitous, it is actually a little scary.
You seem to know nothing of history and just regurgitate what the ultra-right-wing idiots are spouting.
You know what you get when you remove all "checks and balances"? You get Trump...
Neither by your naming them "corporations". States are quite well-defined entities, namely, they are organizations which have the monopoly of power in a certain territory. Once some "company" has this power, it is a de facto state.
We are again back to counting wars?
Substantially or not, the US occupants are yet there.
The idea to blame the evil capitalists for everything is old left crap, not even worth to be considered. Corporatism and deep state rule is a combination of big firms and all the various parts of the state.
Don't change the subject. We are pointing out that when you - like a typical Republican media victim - claimed it doesn't matter who gets elected, you were badly and obviously mistaken. It has, it does, and it will.
Most of them are gone. W brought them. Obama withdrew them. Trump is restocking them. Elections matter.
Nobody is doing that - so you don't have to, either.
Just face it: you have no idea who or what the US "deep state" is. It's just a term you throw in to explain Trump's administration without acknowledging you got played for a fool.
They are corporations. Capitalist corporations. What am I supposed to name them?
So? It's still a capitalist corporation, behaving exactly as predicted.
Indeed, given that the loser is, in this case, only Europe. To support Europe was a serious point of the globalists, thus, of the deep state of the past. It is no longer important for the nationalist faction of the deep state.
I have some sufficiently well idea of what I mean with deep state, and explained that many times. It remains sufficiently vague, but that's a consequence of its nature (the deep state does not act openly) as well as of my own approach to this (I do not follow various conspiracy theories about who is who in the deep state - there are many of them, with a lot of details, but I have no way to check them, and therefore remain neutral about these details). The main point of the deep state is that the really important things remain constant, election-independent.
Feel free to name them blablabla or corporations, your choice. If they have the monopoly of power over some territory, I name them states. That's my choice, and a quite reasonable one because there is a danger (especially in left anarchism) that the result of some anarchist revolution will be some de facto state named differently.
You cant enslave without having the power of a state on the territory where you hold your slaves. A usual corporation in a usual state does not have such a power. It is not about definitions, it is about real power. If the state supports slavery, like today in the US, private companies can have slaves (like private prison companies). If not, they can do this only in the underground, and then it is a mafia gang, and not a corporation (even if they may use corporations as covers).
Except that in an anarcho-capitalist society there are other ways to restrict the powers of corporations. Remember the reputational system? Ok, you think they will not work, but I'm sure they will work. If I would think, like you, that they don't work, I would not be an anarcho-capitalist but would reject it as utopian. In this sense, the joke is a very old one and not relevant to me.
And that privilege does not rest with Big Business?
The potential loser in a nuclear treaty breakdown and nuclear arms buildup involving Russia and the US is not just Europe.
So?
You are on record supporting the breakdown of the American and Eurasian democracies, and welcoming their replacement by fascist governance.
A capitalist corporation uncurbed by government easily acquires such power - almost by default. That is historical record, observation - it's where the "banana" in "banana republic" came from.
And when you rename them, they stop being capitalist corporations? Cool. I have no such magical powers, myself.
In your recent post, it had expanded to include not only the entire government but all the major corporations involved.
Of course not. People usually arrange their governments to prevent that, if they can. Fascist takeovers are disasters.
