"Slight misunderstanding here. The nazi thing was based off of what some that visit this board have called me before, not you. My favorite was fascist adjacent for my belief immigration should be capped at around .1% (about 330k) of the population per year. I wonder what that means for the Japanese who allow 0 immigration. I certainly did not mean to imply I thought you thought that about me."
I know :) I just wanted to make it clear how I, and the ideology I support, differs from those we both dislike. Despite the fact that my ideology sometimes gets conflated with those others (sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose).
The immigration issue is a complex one that could entail a discussion thread all its own. But regarding the Woke on this topic? They are notorious hypocrites with this and many other things, because they are loyal to identity over any specific set of principles. Yes, they will attack you and other Americans for being against immigration, but will give Japan a free pass since their government is not run by white people. Much as they criticize Christianity for all sorts of things (some of which I will agree with) but give a complete free pass to Islam even though it supports much of the same things because Christianity is connected to "whiteness" in their minds and Muslims with people of color. In my case, I'll hold all nations and belief systems to the same standards no matter what color of gender of people are mostly in charge or associated with it, and no matter what part of the world they are located in or connected to.
"Another amusing one. I was apparently a right wing fascist for wanting accountability for where Ukraines money is spent that they are being given. Their capital is saved and functioning. They should be able to account for that money. But, if you support the war 99% not 100% the crazies attack. You must bleed sky blue and wheat gold or else. Then these same people say patriotism and nationalism is awful. Kind of amusing really."
In short, more hypocrisy and triple or quadruple standards. Which is why I do not support them or consider them pro-democracy or pro-freedom in any sense of the standard definitions of those words. You have to twist the meanings of each word quite a bit to accommodate their worldview.
I'm curious if you are one of the whole world must be the same political system or just your local area? I don't even desire the whole world to be capitalist. Just either my small part or a part I can move to. As I said I would like a lot of different systems to be tried the best one's will eventually be one's everyone wants to go to."
I have no problem with different systems being tried in different places, as long as the vast majority of the people in each location make this decision. I do, of course, think an actual economic democracy would work best, but I would be happy to see it tried on a wide scale (the only type of scale it could be tried on) alongside examples of capitalist nations or even other class-divided systems to see which does the best for everyone living there as opposed to some but not the majority. Of course, a real economic democracy needs a strong industrial base that is technologically capable of producing an abundance for all, so it would need at least one 1st world country as we call them today to operate within, which is why it was not technologically possible prior to the Industrial Revolution reaching its zenith towards the end of the 19th century, or in 1917 Russia (which is why a true classic Marxian economic democracy was not actually possible there from a technical standpoint) or in underdeveloped 3rd world countries today who likewise are not advanced enough in productive technology.
If we established several nations having a connected economic democracy, I would have no problem with those who still wanted to live under a capitalist system having a nation or colonized planet within the solar system (this will be a reality as the 21st century progresses) to accommodate people who still wanted to live under that type of system. Of course, one of the features of capitalism is its need to constantly expand and conquer more territory for its growing markets, so there would have to be a strong compromise made between territories lacking class divisions and those which sought to preserve a system characterized by such divisions to keep its markets contained to areas that still recognized a market. There could potentially be a form of trade worked out between the laborers in an economic democracy and the few in charge of the market-based nations, but I am not certain exactly what form it would take and how tensions would be resolved during this period of time where both existed rather than one or the other only. That could lead to some interesting speculative stories, but it would remain speculation for the present.
"In any case I'm an optimist and I don't think it will be that much longer in humanities future where basic needs are taken care of because of the amount of automation. Food, shelter, basic supplies."
I am a major optimist too, and I fully agree. We actually have the technology to produce an abundance for all now, and have for a bit over a century. However, the problem is that this automation is owned and controlled by a few, not by everyone collectively, and this few uses that automation to make a profit for themselves while displacing laborers from their jobs with no form of compensation. Examples of this include those automated cashiers you see in supermarkets.
This is why I argue that to reach this full technological possibility, such technology has to belong to the common people altogether rather than a few who are only interested in personal enrichment and not the betterment of everyone. I know that you are most definitely interested in the betterment of everyone else; we simply disagree as to which type of system can use this technology to provide an abundance for all as opposed to just the enrichment of a few.