Left and Rzzight

Democratic socialists emphasize regulation of big business, the upper class and essential goods and services over small business, the middle class and inessentials.

Socialism’s regulation is partial, communism’s regulation is total.

Under communism, all is public, everything is everyone’s, there is no private.

I don’t know. I don’t mean to be offensive, but those are all very academic definitions that I can’t really work with.

Concerning paleoconservatism, I looked at the wikipedia page. I don’t see anything that might indicate a will or intention to wipe anyone out. Maybe i’m missing something.

Also, you allude that neocons want to wipe some people out but can’t practically do it. But who do they supposedly want to wipe out? I know of no such group.

Like you have some odd definitions, or very set definitions. for example of socialism, what “it” whatever it is wants. But socialism is a term with a historical context. Originally it WAS interchangeable with communism, communism was just a more specific term used for the more academic theory behind socialism. But they are the same thing. Socialists like to say no, but separating the two causes more confusion than clarity. Like why is it that understanding communist theory I can predict what socialists will want or do next, whereas if you just judge what socialists say it seems to change from one month to the other with no rhyme or reason?

There is no “socialism” and what “it” wants. There are socialists and what they want.

Regarding the whole elitism vs egalitarian thing, elitism vs egualitarian is a separate discussion from collectivist vs individualist. Whoever is elite or stands out in fascism or nazism does so in the context of a collective, a race, a nation. If you look at the terms, social ist and commune ist, these indicate a preference regarding collective vs individual, not egualitarian vs elitist. that’s why nazis used national socialist and no one found it weird, it wasn’t dissonant.

A collective can explicitly favour elitism and incorporate it in its theoretical considerations, because it makes sense in the context of a collective, who is best in the collective.

Individualists can’t really explicitly even consider it, much less integrate it in theory. In that sense, it is much more egalitarian. Some distinctions may arrise between individuals eventually which might from the outside be discerened as elites and less elite. But even then, groups are implied.

An elite warrior. The best of the group orcollective "warrior,’ the one who best espouses the characteristics of the group, the ultimate expression of the collective.

An elite individual? Think about it, it doesn’t even make sense.

Why is there never any talk of “elite” businessmen or elite merchants?

Elite traders?

It’s because individuals, and capitalists (not as in adhering to the ideology capitalism, which doesn’t exist, but as in people out to accumulate capital as Marx used it), aren’t measured against a group or collective. They are measured aginst themselves, against their own success.

“He’s an elite filmmaker.”

No.

Weirdly there is the term business elite. but still weirdly there is not then an elite businessman.

that’s because business elite is a cover for fascist corporatist ideology. The idea that there is a group of people versed in the best characteristics of the collective of merchants. Silly.

Anyway, when mentioning business elite, they rarely mean entrepreneurs. they tend to refer to the type of corporate operator that can only thrive and indeed exist within the frame of heavy regulations. The elitism arises not from their business savvy, but from their knowledge of the intricate web of regulations that create a collective where governments, businesses and corporations become indistinguishable.

Maybe I ot lost with that last post.

But I did say, from the outside, there may arise individuals that can be differentiated from other individuals to form something that can perhaps be called an elite. A business elite. But only post facto, never from the inside where the term elite businessman can make no sense.

And like I also said, it already implies a group, it already doesn’t refer to individuals but a kind of collective.

No entrepreneur setting out aims to be an elite businessman which, again, doesn’t make sense as a term, or part of a business elite. They just set out to crush and get rich. Then if they make it perhaps they can be considered part of the business elite. But even then… I can imagine people using the term business elite, but I can’t imagine them then pointing out specific people within it. It is a sort of nebulous term referring to a vague thing. A group that perhaps doesn’t exist, as it cannot. It is refering to what is a measure of success, not to what characteristics a member of the collective would have to hold to make part of it.

Business elite. It’s sort of dissociated from the actual activity of capitalism.

Yeah, fuck it, I stick by that. Business elite is a term that refers to corporatism, not entrepreneurship. There is crossover, so the term works, but not an actual correspondence.

Is Jay-Z part of a or the business elite?

How I feel about communists:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXKVOxqkWM[/youtube]

Even Patton. You can say Patton was the best goddamn general in the war, but you can’t say he was elite.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9XNFpRdhg[/youtube]

Also Trump.

On the other hand, Justin “pretty boy” Trudeau is clearly elite, part of an or the elite.

That’s why people hate Trump so deeply and love Obama, even though Trump is much better at his job and far less of a psychopath than Obama ever was.

It’s because these people trust Elites, good or bad, as long as they manifest the characteristics of the Elite, that “presidential” tone. Because they don’t trust themselves as individuals. So Trump, a magnisfiscent manifestation of an individual, scares the shit out of them.

What Ive always said.

Trump is an actual citizen, of these The People guys. This is the first time in history the whole US setup actually came into play on the executive level.

[b]
“Because they don’t trust themselves as individuals.”

[/b]

And FUCK em for that.

leeches, lice, fucking less than nothing unbeings. I hate.