Form: Reply

1) I cannot answer a question without definitions or premises upon which it depends. Your attempt to do so is just a common juvenile sophistry. Try harder.
I tried to establish (a) your definition of socialism (b) how the spectrum of socialism can vary from national to international, and how fascism creates this distinction (c) and the premises upon which all our arguments are made – the inequality of individuals, classes, sexes, populations (ethnicities), and group strategies (civilizations (and the overlap with races).)
You have avoided each of these, and they are necessary for any discourse.
2) You have not demonstrated that you can reduce an author’s contribution to a debate to your own terms such that a reciprocal discourse ons hared meaning can be established. So I have no idea if you are capable of any knowledge of discourse at all. So far all I see is posturing. I have a long established reputation for the opposite: excruciatingly rigorous detail.

I recognize that i) you have no idea to whom you speak and ii) my peers would not waste time on you. (I do because it teaches others who read it.). But it should be increasingly obvious to you that you are being boxed in very deliberately.

So I mean, put up or shut up so to speak. 😉

Reply addressees: @EmbitteredThe @TheSovereignMD @nayibbukele @TyrantsMuse