Again, you're really attached to semantics here. Sure, USSR = Soviet Republics. That means they also called themselves Republican. Those terms are meaningless in the way they used them. In fact, the USSR was socialist in name only. After Lenin gave way to Stalin, it was a Stalinist state..simply put, totalitarian. Do you think that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is either democratic or a republic?
No, but I believe you have a much deeper problem here, which I'll get to in a bit. Part of the reason we use dictionaries is so that we can ground our understanding of the meaning of words, particularly when any two people seem to have differing understanding of those words. So let's start here:
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.co...
In fact, the USSR meets all three definitions of socialism. To wit:
any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
This is exactly what the USSR did. If you had a job, it was for the government. If you bought food, you bought it from the government. If you had a farm, it was the government's farm. Sure, they weren't exactly egalitarian, but as it says, that's part of the theorem. No socialist system has ever been truly egalitarian, rather, that was the goal behind the theory. You might also note that Karl Marx himself, who was really the thought leader behind the entire movement, specifically said that the revolution and its leaders were not to be questioned, so free speech couldn't be allowed during the revolution, but *should* come back later, effectively meaning that there would be what was under his own definition, a ruling class. "But trust me bro, it will work!"
The second definition:
a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Nothing more needs to be said here, that was in fact what the USSR did.
And see the third definition:
a stage of society in Marxist theory that is transitional between capitalism and communism (see communism sense 2c) and is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I believe your problem here is that you have (or at least had) no idea what the word socialism means, which is something I've already mentioned is a common problem among progressives, and many others as well. You'd hardly be the first or even the fifth person I've had to correct on this. Some of these guys go around talking about how great socialism is, and then it turns out they have no idea what the word actually meant.
Words are important, which is why you should choose them carefully. Most importantly, don't use words that you don't understand.
The map is not the territory, but that graphic is a lot more accurate than your conflated soup.
Explain why. Be specific. You say mine is a conflated soup, so defend your argument for why.
Mind you, one thing I do is choose my words very carefully. You don't appear to do that at all, as so far you just kind of fly by the seat of your pants. You said the USSR was not socialist, I just proved that it was. Under that basis alone (I've got others, but going into them would be overkill) it is my assertion that you're the confused one here. This is likely because you don't even understand anything that I'm saying, because I understand the underlying material here, and you think you do but you really don't. But if you disagree, and you have a solid reasoning for why, then proving it should be pretty easy to do.
It is possible to be economically libertarian and socially liberal, and economically socialist/liberal but socially conservative.
Before we dissect this further, give some examples. And I strongly encourage you to use a dictionary before you start, even if you think you know what those terms mean.
Ultimately, it depends upon the inclusiveness of the hegemony of a state if it qualifies as a polyarchy or concentrated, which on the far left and right always becomes a concentrated-power system. Here's a classic diagram. [alchetron.com]
You're falling into a common situation among programmers: Diving too far into the academic understanding of problems and how they will work according to the theorems (which is useful but on its own can lead you into traps) while ignoring the reality of how your solution is actually going to play out (this is actually the fundamental flaw with many ideologies.) So rather than just throwing academic diagrams at me, why don't you try to provide specific real-world examples to provide context? And then explain how they fit into your ideas of left and right.
Because anarcho capitalism (while never actually instituted in the real world) devolves into hegemony of the rich and totalitarianism.
And how would you know that when it hasn't existed? But there's an even bigger problem with your overall reasoning skills: You don't seem to be able to differentiate hypothesis from results. So the idea, or the ideology behind it, is that there is no totalitarianism. Which on its face is...I don't know, left wing? But you say it's right wing because of how your academic theorem says it will play out. Meanwhile, you have no idea how it actually works in practice, but you're still going to make assertions about where it belongs on some ultimately useless chart. You also don't seem to understand the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
What progressives want is a hybrid system which has center-left socialist elements on top of the capitalist system.
So they want a third position...
America already has a hybrid capitalist-socialist economic system with Medicare, Social Security, etc. Even the staunchest conservatives won't touch Social Security despite it being well, socialist.
Stop there. It's not socialist, it's welfare. Do you understand the difference between socialism and welfare?
Progressives generally advocate for expanding this system, such as making Medicare free for all instead of for 65+.
In other words, more welfare. But that's not all they want. You really have no idea what you're talking about dude...I mentioned Bernie and AOC wanting the "economic bill of rights" proposed by FDR, did it never occur you to look up any of that? Some of those are welfare ideas, some are socialist, and at least one is definitely fascist.
On the other hand, fascist states tend to advocate for free healthcare in the context of creating healthy members of the military and society, but eliminating assistance for or euthanizing those who aren't useful e.g. Aktion T4.
You're confusing fascism with nazism. To draw an analogy that you seem to be more familiar with, even if you likely don't understand it, you're basically saying Leninism and Stalinism are the same thing. For what it's worth, I tend to be fascinated with things that I don't like, which include both socialism fascism. Which means I probably understand both better than you do.
The center-right advocates for a private system of healthcare, the center-left for a private system highly regulated.
If the regulation says "you can only make so much profit", that's distinctly fascist. So it isn't as simple as you want it to be.
But as far as your political allegiance, you seem to be a pretty bitter person
Everybody is bitter about something. What is it you think I'm bitter about?
who doesn't have a well-formed philosophy
Actually I do. Here: https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/comments....
You might call my philosophy "the scientific method"
but rather picks sides of arguments based on what they like to argue about,
Who doesn't do this? If you don't like arguing about something bad enough, you won't argue about it. I don't like arguing about abortion for example, so I rarely argue about it. When people come along that are pro choice or pro life, I mostly just listen but don't say much.
with a strong conservative bias in many areas.
And what makes it conservative? Be specific.
The sheer volume of comments and amount of time you spend posting on Slashdot betrays the fact you're probably pretty lonely
I don't really spend as much time as you probably think. At least half of my posts, if not much more than that, were done while I was taking a shit.
which is a side effect of your crackpot personality and beliefs.
And what makes them crackpot? Be specific.
Notice how I ask that often? It's because I want other people to choose their words carefully. You say my beliefs are crackpot, in other words, impractical. Yet I'm the one asking what use is left and right, while you haven't come up with an answer. More likely, you just chose that word at random instead of having a specific intent behind it.
