I ended up responding to your post to much for a simply short response -- this is it.and it's still not enough. Thanks for your input and motivation as well. 1914wizard OUT

2307020700Su GOOD THINGS IN SMALL DOSAGES CAN DESTROY IN LARGE ONES:

Socialism, like anything else, can be harmful if carried (or taken) to excess! In past conversations I’ve likened socialism to a poisonous venom that is medicinal in small dosages, but deadly poisonous if taken even slightly to excess. Although I must admit to it apparently not being a very good analogy.

Perhaps I should be advising moderation, but even that admonition seems a bit dangerous to some immoderate people. Such ideologies as National & Communist Socialism(s) are excellent examples of ‘immoderate’ (excess) socialist collectivism.

A distinction between ‘joint (or collective) ventures’ and ‘socialist collectivism’ is imperative for a healthy civilization to exist. Civilizations are in fact ‘joint ventures’ just like all forms of ‘collective bargaining’ are indicative of healthy civilized behavior. Such things as corporate entities including cooperatives of one kind or another along with trade unions come to mind as western examples of acceptable (collective) joint ventures without malevolent intent to/for the individual.

However, American Social Security was/is a step too far having falsely sold to the American public as an innocent retirement plan administered by the United States Federal Government after which it has been converted into a giant socialist slush fund from which socialists extend their tentacles into all avenues of society. Had Social Security remained true to its original intent our country would be quite different and our Social Security as intended would’ve remained solvent indefinitely. For instance, what business does your Social Security retirement fund have in financially supporting Family Courts around the nation proportionate to the amount of alimony and child support they can extract from American men? You know, Hitler had just such a specialized court established to deal with Nazi undesirables that they called their Peoples Courts as comparative to our so called Family Courts. But that’s just one diversion of your retirement funds by our socialist grifters – there’s more. But I possibly digress.

Socialists are forever looking for ways to get their foot in the door of free market capitalism.

Even though it might be immediately difficult to see the relativeness of the phenomenal asymmetrical brain hypothesis of Dr. Iain McGilchrist, I’m going to link one of his interviews hereto below for consideration.

Dr. McGilchrist appears to be on a book promotional tour of all the Youtube creators, of late, for his new book, “The Matter with Things,” so there’s plenty of interviews out there in cyberspace to choose from.

PS. Could Dr. Gilchrist’s hypothesis serve to explain, to any extent, the current ‘Trans (dysphoric) Pandemic’?

Posted by: Jordan B Peterson ~ 10 months ago ~ 424K views ~ 7.1M subscribers
“The Matter with Things | Iain McGilchrist | EP 278”

#LETSGOBRANDON ~ A Commun-ist (whether he’s capable of realizing it or not?).
#MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) an existentialist (individualist) philosophy of life.
#ONLY PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE – STICKS & STONES DON’T, NOT EVEN GUNS KILL ONLY PEOPLE DO.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
im·mod·er·ate

ADJECTIVE

immoderate (adjective)

not sensible or restrained; excessive:

"immoderate drinking"

SIMILAR: excessive, heavy, intemperate, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, unlimited, unbridled, self-indulgent, overindulgent, imprudent, reckless, wild, undue, inordinate, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, outrageous, egregious, extravagant, lavish, prodigal, profligate, wanton, dissipative, uncurbed, uncalled for.

OPPOSITE: moderate.

ORIGIN:
late Middle English: from Latin immoderatus, from in- ‘not’ + moderatus ‘reduced, controlled’ (past participle of moderare).

Data from Oxford Languages

@1914wizard

It's just a conversation, nobody knows what the best form of social organization is.

Socialism or capitalism and any other forms of social organization can only be a crude model of reality.  They are abstract concepts.  Like all abstractions they do not exist in physical reality.  They can however change the meaning of physical reality.  Money for example, while totally abstract, changes the meaning of time and space by facilitating trade over long distances and artificially storing wealth.  Its value is dependent on trust in the social organization it is created by.  It's a faith based system detached from physical reality.

Socialism is an outgrowth of the enlightenment.   It's a theory of how to replace the faith based system of nobility and church.  It emerged at a time when "capitalism" was already replacing hereditary nobility with a new class of managers.  As the power of hereditary nobility and the church was declining socialism and capitalism competed for that power.  It was a battle of two faiths.  Faith in the ability of "science" to organize society in the case of socialism and faith in economic competition in the case of capitalism.  Both systems were in theory meritocratic.  Positions in the socialist hierarchy  would  be based on demonstrative intellectual superiority and in the capitalist system on proven productivity.  The enlightened or intellectual elites tended towards support of socialism and the entrepreneur rich towards capitalism.  There was however a great deal of crossover; not all intellectuals favored socialism and not all the rich favored capitalism.  Since both systems are abstract, the way they manifest themselves in physical reality is chaotic and often mixed.

One of the fundamental flaws in both socialism and capitalism is their denial that they are faith based.  Believers do not see them as abstractions.  The reality is that only abstractions are absolute.  But both claim that they absolutely are modeled on reality.  In the case of socialism since it has its origins in the enlightenment it's legitimacy is derived from the absolute truth of science.  The legitimacy of capitalism is derived from the absolute truth of productivity.  A detached observer however would notice that science itself is an abstract and approximate model of reality.   Its absolute nature is derived from abstractions such as mathematics.  Whenever science is dealing with complex chaotic systems that are irreducible such as societies it's inexact nature becomes evident.  In the case of capitalism the nature of productivity is tied to the inexact and variable nature of values.  Productivity becomes subjective in the face of the complex chaotic system we call society and social values.  

Both socialism and capitalism destroy human dignity.  In the case of socialism it is due to its link to science and determinism.  There is no scientific explanation of freewill.  Civilization however is impossible without freewill.  Without freewill human agency and dignity is impossible.  Until science recognizes that it is based on abstractions that are only absolute in the abstract then it will continue to deny human dignity derived from freewill.  In the case of capitalism human dignity is destroyed for similar reasons.  Capitalists believe that productivity is absolute and demonstrative.  Until they recognize the link between abstract values and freewill it will continue to deny human dignity.  

The irony is that the older system of nobility and church were more in tune with reality.  The reality that human dignity is derived from the abstraction of morality.  Morality that can only exist if freewill is "real".  The flaw in that older system was that it also was linked to determinism.  The idea that some were born to rule and others serve along with the idea that the church was the absolute arbiter of morality.  The idea that morality was not abstract and only loosely based on freewill.

In a way liberal democracy has proven to be the best possible solution.  It grants people the freewill to elect representatives, the freewill to determine values,  the freedom to define what is valuable in the marketplace of ideas and commerce,  it puts restraints on anyone trying to deny human dignity through the accumulation of power.  While it is inherently less efficient than any of the other systems it makes provisions for the need for efficiency in times of stress such as war.   Those provisions are constantly being abused.  Corporatism keeps the population in a constant state of war.  The war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war against terror, the war against discrimination, the war on religion and traditional values.  Corporatism is the unholy incestual relationship between various interest groups and government.  It destroys shared values and the faith on which civilizations are always based.