a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government ... in the case of an absolute monarchy ... BY THE FUCKING MONARCH since the the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch .
So what is your point. The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )
All monarchies are socialist ... some try to hide it behind a blackmailed parliament controlled through the secret services .
Monarchy is the ultimate expression of private ownership. There is no state, public coffer, or possibility of communal ownership.
Again I'll refer you to Hans-Herman Hoppe. He is currently the all-star of the Mises Institute, which is the intellectual hub of Austrian economics and libertarianism. You may not realize it, but you're spouting a heavily distorted version of Rothbardian rhetoric from the 70s. Murray Rothbard was the best disciple of Ludwig von Mises and started the libertarian party in the US, abandoning it in 1984 after the Kochtopus co-opted libertarianism into Regeanism by way of the Hayekian Chicago School run by Milton Friedman.
The problem with classical libertarianism, of the early Rothbardian strain, is that it only serves deluezian territorialization to further empower the internationalist regime. Institutions of power are an inescapable fact of any civilization. By assisting socialists with the dismantling of traditional institutions, a vacuum is left where the socialists can construct their own power center with inverted values that are foundationally anti-human.
Rothbards paleolibertarian work in the 90s is far superior, but mostly ignored because it actually presents a threat to the regime.
The limitations of monarchy is what TrueElephant was talking about:
There's your problem. You conceive of any governing authority as having the power of a modern liberal state. An absolute fuedal monarch is far more limited in his power than a democratic state. Mass conscription isn't possible without a democratic political formula to justify itself as the will of the masses, as demonstrated well by the contrast of Napoleon and the coalition. The machinations of a king and his court does not touch the peasant, who can manage his piece of land as he pleases without applying for permits. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the Rex to uplift his people towards a better condition.
The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )
OWNERSHIP is separate from power. You can argue it's upstream from it, really, since an owner has rights over his own property. Even in an absolute monarchy, the monarch doesn't own the entirety of the means of production, which is what the definition of socialism requires.
But go ahead, flail and cry about socialist absolute monarchs.
since he is a fan of theocratic monarchism. =)) wooohoo ... now that is something i would want ... a christian IRAN =)) fuck me
He wants state control ... for whatever he supports. POINT ... If that ain't socialism ... i don't know what is .
He probably just wants to beat it around the bush ... and hope that the people put someone he agrees with in charge ... THEN the person in charge SUPPORTS the people that the elefant agrees with ... subsidises the people of the same religion ... etc etc. but it wouldn't be socialism ... it would be something ELSE ENTIRELY ... also not capitalism ... SOMETHING ELSE
=)))
MAN THAT IS A SOCIALIST . He just wants to take control by different MEANS .
It's a big part of why we have hybrid capitalist-socialist systems in most of the countries of the world, with more socialism getting added to the mix over time.
Surely , not stating the obvious to the people , that GOVERNMENT SUPPORT is SOCIALISM , didn't contribute to socialism creeping in ? Or allying with the NAZIS and the JAPANESE after defeating them ... and not forcing CAPITALISM onto them but instead subsidizing the same people that contributed to those regimes ? Surely that didn't contribute ?
I can hear the retards ... how come germs and japs have "free healthcare" after loosing 2 world wars. We know how ..
Yep ... the reason is the people like the elephant ... who probably know the truth ... know exactly what socialism is ... but also know that most people FALL FOR it ... and wants to USE IT .
Great ... so fuck them ... I WANT THEM TO FUCKING COLLAPSE .. I want to own their fucking policies ... your alt was hiding THE EU behind the US again claiming the US is imposing them ... which is TOTAL bulshit ... seeing how they cried like bitches when Putin rolled over the Ukrainian border .
So you think he ain't a socialist even though he defends that SOCIALIST UNION ?
Capitalism versuses communism is a false dichotomy.
And gives us a great example OF SOCIALISM ! GOVERNMENT SUBSIDISED CORPORATIONS !
Who own McDonalds? Raytheon? Google? Blackrock?
The bourgeoisie is propertied, local, attenuated, and independent. The proletariat is propertyless, national or even international, expansive, and dependent. The bourgeoisie's power was fundamentally rooted in ownership and domination of physical space, while the proletariat is subject to whims and approval of the indivual or organizations that employ them.
It's a false dichotomy ... just as it was false in USSR ... except IT wasn't false ... capitalism merely transformed and instead of expending effort to grow the "smart" started to skip as much work as possible. The smarter joined the secret services and started smuggling EVERYTHING ... from the more capitalist WEST ! Ultimately IT all CRUMBLED !
See ... it ain't false at all ... IT MERELY looks false to the imbeciles ... because it's hidden behind a wall of PRINTED money and FAKE GROWTH !
He pretends to just state how things WORK ... things DON'T WORK a certain WAY ... the people being imbeciles are making things work one way or another. They CHOOSE ... socialism or capitalism ! State control or FREEDOM . Belief or Free thinking .
And it ain't like the US military presence lets them set domestic policy in Europe... influence, sure, but not the power to control. The EU is sovereign and should own it's own shit entirely.
The US has it's own separate and parallel issues with socialism, mostly surrounding the subversion of education and media-- something the socialists resorted to in the 60s when the material prosperity of the 50s kept the revolution from happening. That's it's own thread, and since you aren't American, I'd be glad to explain what I can, and direct you to James Lindsay for the rest. It's not backwash from the EU. Americans are insular as fuck and have our own, homegrown socialists to worry about.
TentElephant ain't a socialist because he's opposed to the GAE-- it's a derogatory or pejorative term coming from him. When he goes on at length about the evils of American Empire and the corruption it causes, he isn't justifying it-- he's explaining at length why the very creeping socialism you're upset about needs to be fought. In going global, Americanism has gone through "mission creep" into becoming a globalist enterprise.
Given you're European (likely not British Isles, because Brexit), and English is likely a second language for you, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I asked you to quote TentElephant defending the EU because my reading of what he's said doesn't parse that way, as a native speaker. He's laying out the structure as part of opposing it in a broader argument.
Anyway ... you are now resorting to fucking semantics ...
OWNERSHIP is separate from power. You can argue it's upstream from it, really, since an owner has rights over his own property.
And this is plain fucking STUPID ... DOG LEVEL STUPID.
Ownership means nothing without the power to back up your fucking claim.
the monarch doesn't own the entirety of the means of production
BWAHAHAHHA ... the eintirety ? The soviets also didn't ? Were they not socialist enough ? Fuck me i'm pretty sure the North Koreans have some small scale smuggling and private shit going on ... Are they not socialist ?
So you just ousted yourself as a fucking socialist piece of shit ... because you agreed the EU is socialist ... YET they also don't literary own the entirety of the means of production.
SO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND EAT THE FUCKING SHIT ALONG WITH your ALT ... the elefant ... FUCKING socialist FAGGOTS licking yourselves up the ass .
I'm as Nazi as you are socialist. =))
You are a national socialist ... i ain't any kind of socialist =))
I know damn well you aren't a socialist. Reread what I said. =))
No it'S PURE SOCIALISM !
Words have meanings outside of what you believe them to mean.
Monarchism. Isn't. Socialism.
socialism [ soh-shuh-liz-uhm ]
noun
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government ... in the case of an absolute monarchy ... BY THE FUCKING MONARCH since the the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch .
So what is your point. The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )
All monarchies are socialist ... some try to hide it behind a blackmailed parliament controlled through the secret services .
Monarchy is the ultimate expression of private ownership. There is no state, public coffer, or possibility of communal ownership.
Again I'll refer you to Hans-Herman Hoppe. He is currently the all-star of the Mises Institute, which is the intellectual hub of Austrian economics and libertarianism. You may not realize it, but you're spouting a heavily distorted version of Rothbardian rhetoric from the 70s. Murray Rothbard was the best disciple of Ludwig von Mises and started the libertarian party in the US, abandoning it in 1984 after the Kochtopus co-opted libertarianism into Regeanism by way of the Hayekian Chicago School run by Milton Friedman.
The problem with classical libertarianism, of the early Rothbardian strain, is that it only serves deluezian territorialization to further empower the internationalist regime. Institutions of power are an inescapable fact of any civilization. By assisting socialists with the dismantling of traditional institutions, a vacuum is left where the socialists can construct their own power center with inverted values that are foundationally anti-human.
Rothbards paleolibertarian work in the 90s is far superior, but mostly ignored because it actually presents a threat to the regime.
The limitations of monarchy is what TrueElephant was talking about:
OWNERSHIP is separate from power. You can argue it's upstream from it, really, since an owner has rights over his own property. Even in an absolute monarchy, the monarch doesn't own the entirety of the means of production, which is what the definition of socialism requires.
But go ahead, flail and cry about socialist absolute monarchs.
Also: NAME ONE.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY my problem . By not talking ABOUT SOCIALISM vs CAPITALISM ... WE ALREADY LOST ! And that is probably what the elefant WANTS .
https://communities.win/c/KotakuInAction2/p/15HImAG4vx/x/c/4OXEzBYk729
since he is a fan of theocratic monarchism. =)) wooohoo ... now that is something i would want ... a christian IRAN =)) fuck me
He wants state control ... for whatever he supports. POINT ... If that ain't socialism ... i don't know what is .
He probably just wants to beat it around the bush ... and hope that the people put someone he agrees with in charge ... THEN the person in charge SUPPORTS the people that the elefant agrees with ... subsidises the people of the same religion ... etc etc. but it wouldn't be socialism ... it would be something ELSE ENTIRELY ... also not capitalism ... SOMETHING ELSE
=)))
MAN THAT IS A SOCIALIST . He just wants to take control by different MEANS .
Surely , not stating the obvious to the people , that GOVERNMENT SUPPORT is SOCIALISM , didn't contribute to socialism creeping in ? Or allying with the NAZIS and the JAPANESE after defeating them ... and not forcing CAPITALISM onto them but instead subsidizing the same people that contributed to those regimes ? Surely that didn't contribute ?
I can hear the retards ... how come germs and japs have "free healthcare" after loosing 2 world wars. We know how ..
Yep ... the reason is the people like the elephant ... who probably know the truth ... know exactly what socialism is ... but also know that most people FALL FOR it ... and wants to USE IT .
Monarchism isn't socialism, you know...
Great ... so fuck them ... I WANT THEM TO FUCKING COLLAPSE .. I want to own their fucking policies ... your alt was hiding THE EU behind the US again claiming the US is imposing them ... which is TOTAL bulshit ... seeing how they cried like bitches when Putin rolled over the Ukrainian border .
So you think he ain't a socialist even though he defends that SOCIALIST UNION ?
And gives us a great example OF SOCIALISM ! GOVERNMENT SUBSIDISED CORPORATIONS !
It's a false dichotomy ... just as it was false in USSR ... except IT wasn't false ... capitalism merely transformed and instead of expending effort to grow the "smart" started to skip as much work as possible. The smarter joined the secret services and started smuggling EVERYTHING ... from the more capitalist WEST ! Ultimately IT all CRUMBLED !
See ... it ain't false at all ... IT MERELY looks false to the imbeciles ... because it's hidden behind a wall of PRINTED money and FAKE GROWTH !
He pretends to just state how things WORK ... things DON'T WORK a certain WAY ... the people being imbeciles are making things work one way or another. They CHOOSE ... socialism or capitalism ! State control or FREEDOM . Belief or Free thinking .
It ain't my alt, dude.
And it ain't like the US military presence lets them set domestic policy in Europe... influence, sure, but not the power to control. The EU is sovereign and should own it's own shit entirely.
The US has it's own separate and parallel issues with socialism, mostly surrounding the subversion of education and media-- something the socialists resorted to in the 60s when the material prosperity of the 50s kept the revolution from happening. That's it's own thread, and since you aren't American, I'd be glad to explain what I can, and direct you to James Lindsay for the rest. It's not backwash from the EU. Americans are insular as fuck and have our own, homegrown socialists to worry about.
TentElephant ain't a socialist because he's opposed to the GAE-- it's a derogatory or pejorative term coming from him. When he goes on at length about the evils of American Empire and the corruption it causes, he isn't justifying it-- he's explaining at length why the very creeping socialism you're upset about needs to be fought. In going global, Americanism has gone through "mission creep" into becoming a globalist enterprise.
Given you're European (likely not British Isles, because Brexit), and English is likely a second language for you, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I asked you to quote TentElephant defending the EU because my reading of what he's said doesn't parse that way, as a native speaker. He's laying out the structure as part of opposing it in a broader argument.
https://www.highlandtitles.com/blog/this-land-aint-your-land-part-1/
Anyway ... you are now resorting to fucking semantics ...
And this is plain fucking STUPID ... DOG LEVEL STUPID.
Ownership means nothing without the power to back up your fucking claim.
BWAHAHAHHA ... the eintirety ? The soviets also didn't ? Were they not socialist enough ? Fuck me i'm pretty sure the North Koreans have some small scale smuggling and private shit going on ... Are they not socialist ?
So you just ousted yourself as a fucking socialist piece of shit ... because you agreed the EU is socialist ... YET they also don't literary own the entirety of the means of production.
SO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND EAT THE FUCKING SHIT ALONG WITH your ALT ... the elefant ... FUCKING socialist FAGGOTS licking yourselves up the ass .
</shrug> I tried.
Go felate yourself over your "victory"