Is a "blue state" meltdown fast approaching?

As I wrote and you didn't read, they all have different mechanisms but the same agenda. The end result is an elite ruling class and the subjugation of the population.

"Turnout" is generally accepted to mean turnout at the polls - increased voting.

There is absolutely nothing in that report to lead to your conclusion. Its only your personal bias shared by the authors of that report.

I am aware of the differences between fascism, communism, and socialism (although socialists seem to delight in endless variations on the same theme, believing a little tweak here and there will fix a flawed foundation, and so it makes it difficult to stay up to speed). Despite their various motivations and starting points, in the real world they all end at the same place. Different roads to the same slum. For most discussions they can all be lumped into one big nasty pot.


Disregard for authoritarianism? In reality, thats exactly where you will end up no matter which socialist rat hole you go down. The only place socialism works is on Star Trek. In the real world socialism always involves mass murder and subjugation.

 

You can repeat errors until you're blue in the face. It won't make them valid 'all of a sudden'. Socialism and liberalism, for example, are mutually exclusive. To confuse liberalism and fascism is, obviously, very silly.

Why would I be biased over the Fox Effect? A quite ludicrous accusation. I can only refer to the results: both turnout and voter change effects.

Clearly you're not:

Fascism is a jampot of joviality because of its multiple definitions. To highlight its right wing nature, however, there are several elements we can refer to. I’d first refer to Keserich’s definition of fascism as “the reactionary and terroristic dictatorship of finance capital”. I'd then describe how fascism is incompatible with socialist political economy. Zanden (1960, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol 19, pp 399-411) is a good source. First, the movement is characterised by anti-intellectualism (“obedience, discipline, faith and a religious belief in the cardinal tenets of the Fascist creed are put forth as the supreme values of a perfect Fascist. Individual thinking along independent lines is discouraged. What is wanted is not brains, daring ideas, or speculative faculties, but character pressed in the mold of Fascism”). That is closer to a worship of alienation. Second, we have the belief in the distribution of innate ability (i.e. the Theory of the Elites where those with a natural talent for ruling rule over the masses). A socialist, on the other hand, appreciates the destructiveness of class. Third, we have a reaction against democracy: “the mass of men is created to be governed and not to govern; is created to be led and not to lead, and is created, finally, to be slaves and not masters: slaves of their animal instincts, their physiological needs, their emotions, and their passions”. That aint participatory socialism! Fourth, we have “fascism is in its broadest meaning a revolt against the modern age, against democratisation, secularisation and internationalism”. That is conservatism! Fifth, we have corporatism where fascism is defined as “a system of political and economic decision-making based on the representation of organised interest groups in government” (Sarti). Ultimately fascism and economics, unlike socialism, do not go well together. The economics of fascism is actually “economics by mistake, not design”. But isn’t that the case with most right wing schools?

Indeed, the authoritarian personality is a key element within right wing thought.

 

Conservativism is a coalition. One size does not fit all. The logical end point of some elements of this coalition is anarchism, not authoritarianism. The logical extreme of leftism is always totalitarianism.

 

You are immersed in the minutiae of the political philosophies. You miss the big picture.

Fascism comes from the right side of the spectrum, socialism from the left, they have different motivations and mechanisms of implementation, they even start out differently and seem to take different directions in the early stages, but both move in the same direction and end up at the same location - totalitarian state. Authoritarianism. A small group of people with all the power, determining how resources and favors and murder are allocated to the masses.

Thats the reality of all"collectivist" systems such as fascism and socialism in all its forms. And I mean collectiivist in the sense of the group above the individual. All these forms - fascism, communism, socialism - place the welfare of the group above the welfare of the individual.

You mention liberalism. I will repeat my original statement -

Democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, totalitarians, fascists .... interchangable, all from the same mold. Different mechanisms to accomplish the same agenda, personal power and control of the population.​

Notice liberalism is not included in that nasty pot of collectivist ideologies. You put it there, not me.

 

No, I've demonstrated how these different political philosophies are mutually exclusive. By putting them all together you have shown a contempt for basic political economy and therefore ensured an unsupportable position. We should of course note that economists are more likely to be liberals than right wing...

 

No, you have thrown up a strawman of socialism vs liberalism. You have not shown and cannot show how socialism, communism (which is a strain of socialism in case you didn't know), and fascism are mutually exclusive. Neither can you show how these collectivist ideologies will in the real world result in a viable, peaceful, non-authoritarian system.

And I'm still waiting for your response to DellaVigna and Kaplan. It was your great proof of lack of thought and anti-intellectualism in conservatives. I took the time to actually read the study. Maybe you should as well. Unless you have already, found that the study is biased garbage, and have adjusted your bias against Fox and conservatives. Such open mindedness would be unusual in a socialist, but wonders never cease.

 

I'm not the one that incorrectly lumped mutually exclusive philosophies together.

I have. See above. Note that I was able to refer to the grandfather of fascism and also the vibrancy of socialist economic thought all in one go. Note: your view on 'communism as a strain of socialism' is terribly over-simplistic.

We have evidence of significant effects on voting (evidence which isn't found in liberal media). Your reaction to it is nothing more than misrepresentation (e.g. just focusing on voter turnout) and empty claims of bias. It hasn't been any more high powered than your erroneous comments over political economy

 

California starts closing down State Parks in some areas beginning in June. You can't have what you can't pay for.

 

States with heavy debt like Florida and California, and Arizona and Nevada, will all be bankrupt soon, their spending far exceeds their incomes.

They all fall prey to the public school system, and all those taxpayers will pay for it. Hell, these states' debt combined are larger than the federal government. And the best part is these States, do not have a innovation to save their life.

When these States go belly up all those Muni bond holders, investors, and retirement accounts will be like a cleaning of your hard drive. After all, it is all digital money and in a virtual world of theves.

 

How about Fascism and Socialism?

 

Incompatible. See, for example, how fascism embraces the theory of the elites (whilst socialism focuses on the elimination of alienation)

 

Odd how the most hideous Fascism grew out of Socialism - Mao, Stalin, etc.

 

Stalinism? Created through dictatorship. Its distinct from fascism though

 

Dictatorship, that evolved from socialism.

Why? Because Socialism requires a big government, with lots of power, and controls a lot of wealth. A great place for sociapaths to collect.

 

No, evolved from revolution. Socialists weren't too friendly over it

Socialism doesn't require a big government, it requires the protection of property rights. Capitalism, for its survival, does indeed need big government