As for Nazism, whatever it became, it was founded on socialist, albeit not Marxist, principles as a central aspect of its raison d'etre You can dodge and weave all you like, but that stands. It was a collectivist ideology that was run as an oligarchy. Is it the oligarchical nature of its leadership structure that confuses you? It shouldn't - every socialist/communist government so far tried has been oligarchical. Even those former socialist states that have become democracies retain a tendency to oligarchy. Take a look at Russia, or Italy for that matter.

Gawd, I must have been only half awake this morning when I wrote that first post. Please try to ignore it. I'll rewrite it in English when I: get the chance...

Anti,

Your first post made some sense to me....."It's the contrast between the concept of state as primary social unit verses the individual's self determined priorities being the main social driver."

I think you're right that the greatest contrast is between socialism and libertarianism - conservative verses the "liberal" views are more of a difference in the degree of social democracy.

Peter Hume,

I've worked out a way to measure your hypocrisy regarding name-calling - I call it the "PH level". I note that you chided david f. for, amongst other things, name-calling. Is it that you consider other people's creative efforts in that area less impressive than your own? I did note also that you recently referred to someone on another thread as a "fascist idiot" - now that's real name-calling : )

Poirot
The difference between my ad hominem argument and the socialists’ is that mine forms the *conclusion* of my argument based on reason and history; for the socialists it always forms their *premise* of their argument based on circularity.

Thus while the socialist's ad hominem is the foundation of their entire argument; mine is mere colour and decoration added to an argument that irrefutably establishes my case and refutes theirs.

Furthermore, my ad hominem is virtually always *in response* to ad hominem initiated by the socialist. For example, I asked david f by what principle he could distinguish Marxist from non-Marxist socialism, and he squarked “ideology” at me - the first reflex of all socialists when challenged.

In any event, socialists by definition are always calling for physical violence against me and others – that’s what the argument’s about! You cry precious offence at my *words* when you advocate *physical* violation of me.

Thus if we take away the socialists' name-calling, assuming they are right, slogans like "ideology", "right wing", and “exploitation”, and there's nothing left.

Furthermore, hypocrisy is the very essence of socialist argument.
• Marx alleges economic class determines ideology; but never explains how he can speak for the proletarians.
• You complain that our lifestyle is unsustainable; but consume more resources than most people in history and pre-history and refuse to sacrifice the least frivolous luxury like arguing on the internet
• David f critises Marxist socialism, is unable to idenfity a single principle to distinguish the socialism he favours, yet will not concede and will not re-think his claims.

Thus socialists’ hypocrisy is deep and double-dyed, the very essence of their argument; while there is no hypocrisy in my arguing for freedom, the basis of all morality and production.

But perhaps if you snivel a bit more about "slavery" you will persuade someone of your intellectual standards?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219815
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219816
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12693#219830

Antiseptic, dont be so hard on yourself, your many contributions to these debates have been some of the best i have ever read on any subject, i came to similar conclusions to yourself in the early 1980's & became an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Democrats.

However dont get too exited about libertarians, some of their priciples/policies i agree with but not all. EG definition of conservative politics = traditionalism, "if it aint broken, dont fix it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce (the man who abolished slavery in Britain) is what the communazis would call a "reactionary", a tory/conservative, they were the moderate, centrist, educated, intelligent, middle class, progressives of their day, PROTESTING christians who were up against the whig/aristocracy/feudalists.

It is centrist people like him & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell who got us the representative democracy that we take for granted today.

On a "motherhood statements" level the LNP is fine, but there is some corruption/political correctness among them & that is why i am developing a lobby group, rather than another new minor party, also why i will be voting for the moderate centrist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter & preferencing the LNP ahead of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance.

All capitalists fall into 2 broad groups

#1, "free enterprise" capitalists like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull who are both socially liberal (pro choice, republican, soft core feminist, or meterosexual softie) & economically liberal (international bankster in favour of unlimited free trade killing all family owned, small & medium businesses, farms & co-ops in favour of multi national, mega corporations)

#2, "private enterprise" capitalists like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Katter & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McEwen who are socially conservative (pro life, monarchist, christian family values, not fans of GLBT lifestyle &/or feMANazis) & economically conservative (protectionists who are in favour of "free trade" within OUR borders between small & medium business, family farmers, co-ops, etc, with a semi regulated economy like we had between 1945 & 1972, which made Australia the wealthiest nation on earth with the smallest gap between rich & poor)

Peter,

You seem to have used an awful lot of words to say that you have one rule for yourself - and another rule for everyone who disagrees with you.

We'll call it Peter's "Sticks and Stones Principle"....which btw is a 9 on the PH scale.