Brought to us by Philmon:
National Socialism was considered “right-wing” because (again, by its close relative just to its left) of it’s emphasis on strong, strict, social controls.
But are you really going to try to convince me that the Soviets and the Maoists didn’t use strict social control?
I think the globalists kid themselves about how different they really are, and how egalitarian they really are. The Ruling Class always develops, and it always has special privileges.
I also think the reasons they object to the term "socialist" are 1) bad connotation due to abuses of socialist governments in the 20th century (in other words, it's bad marketing) and 2) they really think that they can do this gradually, without a bloody revolution, and everybody will just be happy once we all see how wonderful it is. So in other words, no boody revolution, no "Socialism".
But they fail to see ... the reason that we are anti-socialist has little to do with the bloody revolution aspect. It has to do with the fact that, as a political philosophy for running a state and its economic system, it doesn't work. And it doesn't "not work" because of the bloodiness of the revolution or the iron-fistedness of the State --- it doesn't work because it rewards sloth and punishes productivity and innovativeness. (And the iron-fistedness of the state becomes necessary because it doesn't work!)
It is inherent in human nature to want to better one's lot in life. Generally speaking, when bettering one's lot in life while following rules that keep you from confiscating from others -- you better others' lives as well. You produce. "Money", in reality, is a representation of production. (A portable proxy, if you will.) The more you produce as a nation, the wealthier your nation is ... the better you do. The less incentive to produce, the less will be produced. The poorer your country will be.
So what you end up with is lower production, and confiscation from the productive to redistribute to the non-productive.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Sounds great, on the surface, but it ain't human (or animal) nature. On top of that, who decides what your abilities are, and who decides what someone's needs are? And if I "need" more because I'm not performing up to my ability ... how does that get resolved?
That's right. The state must either force me to work, or force someone else to support me. If neither really works, then everybody gets poorer. This will not stop the state from continuing to use force, though, and it will use more and more of it as time goes on in more and more desperate attempts to keep control. This happens eventually every time. It is inevitible, because of the nature of what we are, and that is homo sapiens. It gets bloody one way or the other, because at some point someone's going to rebel against being used.
He's got more. It's all enlightening.