about democrats the same can be said with elections. Regarding trump's policies it's pretty much the opposite as democrats agenda.

well let's try to name some policies: higher taxes, social plans, health care, abortion, gender ideology, equality discourse, et cetera — Alexandros

Earlier you said:

And no, social security isn't socialism. There was public road building, public health care, a standing army paid by the state, etc. even in Ancient Greece and Rome. Total state control over society, that's what people object to. — Apollodorus

Are you saying that these things from Ancient Greece and Rome were "pretty socialist"?

How is abortion "pretty socialist"? The law recognizes a woman's right to choose. It is up to her, the individual. It is when the state intervenes and denies that right that we more toward total state control?

There is no state controlled gender ideology. It is when the state insists on an idealized notion of gender conformity that we move toward total state control.

I have no idea why you might think that discourse on equality is "pretty socialist". Equality discourse is fundamental to the founding of the US.

I do not have time to discuss hidden costs, which are just hidden taxes, but the cost is not born by corporations or the wealthy. Corporate welfare is much closer to socialism than anything you mentioned. To put it succinctly, politics is business by other means. It may be more accurate to call this an oligarchy or plutocracy, but if socialism is, as you define it, total state control then it is capitalism rather than socialism that is moving us in that direction.

about democrats the same can be said with elections. Regarding trump's policies it's pretty much the opposite as democrats agenda. — Alexandros

Yes, the same can be said, but the question is whether what they say is true. Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud but have not been able to prove it.

The Republican Party are followers of Marx, Groucho Marx. As the song goes, "whatever it is I'm against it."

["] Oh come on, those policies were fought by right wings and today are pretended to be the center. I said equality discourse which is different. Equality and liberty are misused words. Abortion is not about women's right, there is killing of an innocent humn being which the constitution protects, republicans renewed the fight against it. Please look the history of its promotion and planbed parenthood. This is but to talk long and I would not enter that now. Abot the taxes, same thing, you are right about not having time to discuss it, I think trumps policy was against tax raising. And yes, corporations is a kind of plutocracy and they are clearly with the democrats and their cancel culture. You mixed me and Apollodorus in that about ancient rome and Greece. That's talking about centuries with different governments and city states. Certainly not socialists.

Hang on a second. Aren't you confusing @Alexandros with @Apollodorus there?

I can't speak for others, but the point I was making was that the Left tends to use any issue, especially issues that appeal to emotion and lend themselves to mass mobilization, for its own agenda. It isn't that the issues themselves are always "socialist" or "left-wing", just that they are used for socialist purposes without those involved even realising it.

I just noticed that I mistook some comments by @Apollodorus for your own.

Oh come on, those policies were fought by right wings and today are pretended to be the center. — Alexandros

The center shifts. Gary Trudeau has a TV series called "Alpha House". In one episode there was a Republican retreat and they hired a Reagan impressionator for entertainment. They became incensed
by what he said and thought it a betrayal of Conservationism. It turns out that everything he said was taken verbatim from Reagan's speeches. He was far left of today's center.

I said which is different. — Alexandros

But you have not said what the difference is.

Abortion is not about women's right, there is killing of an innocent humn being which the constitution protects, republicans renewed the fight against it. — Alexandros

Yes, they are continually renewing the fight and reframing the issue. Are you claiming that the woman has no right regarding what happens in her womb? The problem is intractable because there are conflicting rights. The more developed the fetus the more standing it has. I think there are significant differences between a zygote and an innocent human being. But this is not a debate I want to get into.

The Constitution is silent on abortion. It was a common practice at the time and was not prohibited by law.

Please look the history of its promotion and planbed parenthood. — Alexandros

Please look at the history of abortion practices in colonial America and the eventual development of laws prohibiting abortion.

corporations is a kind of plutocracy and they are clearly with the democrats and their cancel culture. — Alexandros

Both Democrats and Republicans have been in favor of corporate welfare. It is at present only the Democrats who are proposing raising taxes on corporations. Many of them currently pay no taxes.

You mixed me and Apollodorus in that about ancient rome and Greece. — Alexandros

Yes, I noticed that. See above. Sorry again.

Hang on a second. Aren't you confusing Alexandros with @Apollodorus there? — Apollodorus

Yes, I did and noticed it when responding to Alexandros above. My apologies.

the point I was making was that the Left tends to use any issue, especially issues that appeal to emotion and lend themselves to mass mobilization, for its own agenda. — Apollodorus

The same point can and has be made with regard to the Right.

The way I see it, women should have a right to abortion e.g. when the pregnancy is the result of a crime, such as rape, or when the woman's life is in danger.

However, the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. That's why new standards of civility and common sense must be introduced. We need to return to more moderate attitudes and values.

BTW if you look at the Black Lives Matter movement as an example, although it may represent a good cause, it seems that it is increasingly being used by Marxists and even by the Chinese government to destabilize the country.

Of course, the Right may be using similar tactics too but two wrongs don't make one right. This is one example of how socialism can undermine democracy.

However, the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. — Apollodorus

The right to an abortion is established law. The Left is not using abortion as an emotional issue, their concern is with preserving the law. It is the Right that wants to overturn the law. This is the one of the main reasons the Right got behind Trump. He is by no means a traditional conservative.

... political subversion and undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. — Apollodorus

Are you referring to the insurrection of January 6th? You must be, because nothing else comes close. Only it was the far Right Trumpsters.

Are you saying that the Right wants to change the law but the Left is opposed to that change?

In other words, change is OK when the Left wants it and not OK when the Right wants it. A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

no problem, we both have greek names. Anyway, I don't wanna get into those long arguments either. Just answering your question, no a woman cannot do what she wants in that case, there is a responsibility already there, she can freely choose not to get pregnant. Life begins at conception, what kind of life is that, whatever its development, human. It's a human life. And as far as I know, constitution protects human life, that's the point with it. Crimes or life in danger are to be treated differently, as Apollodorus says. Then there's a lot more to say but this is getting in a different argument from the post.

only an advice for everyone with respect to blm, just look who the sponsors are, who is putting the money there, the same with planned parenthood.

In other words, change is OK when the Left wants it and not OK when the Right wants it. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? — Apollodorus

From your other thread:

And, if there are two basic camps - the camp of "change" or "left" and the camp of "preservation" or "right" - who is right or wrong?
— Apollodorus

Such bivalence is far too simplistic. If the Republicans want to make America great again they are advocating for change. If the Democrats want to protect abortion rights and environmental regulation then they are advocating for preservation.

And:

I don't think this is correct. Politics, left and right, is social experiment. If a favored policy reveals its shortcomings then the intelligent thing to do is address it and make changes. The American Founders put in place the ability to amend the Constitution.

You set up a false dichotomy. You are treating change and preservation without regard to what it is that is to be changed or preserved. Both liberals and conservatives seek to change some things and preserve others.

But let's back up a step. You said:

... the Left shouldn't be allowed to use emotional issues of this kind for the purpose of political subversion and to undemocratically seize power or destabilize the government through mob rule. — Apollodorus

By emotional issues of this kind you meant abortion. My response is that the Left is not using it as an emotional issue. It is established law. It is the Right who is using it as an emotional issue and trying to overturn the law. And so, it is fair to say that the Right is only interesting in preserving the law when they approve of the law. I don' find this hypocritical but it does demonstrate the problem of equating conservatism with preservation.

no problem, we both have greek names. — Alexandros

I was going to make a joke: its all Greek - names - to me.

BLM leader Patrice Cullors has openly endorsed the policies of Socialist leaders like Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong and has described herself and other BLM organisers as “trained Marxists”.

I think she admits that in her book as well, "When They Call You A Terrorist".

Activists at BLM demonstrations have been seen carrying signs with Black Nationalist and Socialist slogans such as “Smash capitalism!” and “fight for Socialism!”

The group is financially supported by the Chinese Progressive Association:

Trained Marxist' Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Party

Maybe this is what our friend Fooloso4 was trying to cover up by denying that civic movements are used for political purposes by the far Left and foreign governments?

Not only Greek but also Green. We all seem to share the same color. How did you arrange that?

I disagree with the equation "monarchy = total state control". Constitutional monarchies are no different from liberal democratic states. In fact, most of them are liberal democracies for all intents and purposes. — Apollodorus

This is true. But my claim is that in monarchy, the state has total control. So who has the control? The people (if constitutional monarchy is indistinguishable from democracies.) Who is the state? The people. The people have total control. Therefore the state has total control.

I disagree with the equation "monarchy = total state control". Constitutional monarchies are no different from liberal democratic states. — Apollodorus

Right you are again. But I wrote "monarchies". NOT "constitutional monarchies". Strawman argument.

(Guess my country...) — Ansiktsburk

Burkina Faso? No... The French Polynesian Islands? no... Vatican City? no... Peru. That's it. It's got to be Peru.

[

↪Ansiktsburk conservative weak but nationalism strong... interesting — deleteduserax

A northern european country governed by social democrats long time. Majority very poor 1900, a slow revolution that made equality around say 1970 very strong. Strong focus on personal merit, big trust in institutions. Good people working. Last years, global havoc, big immigration followed with high criminality. Lower class non-immigrants badly affected by immigration, upper class progressives happy "having saved the little man". The only conservatives - immigrants from muslim countries. Of course, absolute majority of immigrants good people. But havoc in a classroom is not caused by the majority being chaos kids.