"No it's not. Cite a source that states "socialist systems" are "by definition totalitarian". For a self proclaimed well studied academic on the topic of socialism, you seem to BS quite a bit."

George Reisman, for one. Although, you don't really need to cite a source to know it is totalitarian.


"Your general tone demonstrates how hell bent you are on arguing semantics and take a stance against practical and non-traditional non-academic usage of terminologies. It's your beef right now. Yet. socialism at it's core says nothing about totalitarianism. At it's core, it is an economic system. Now, you can find different philosophers who incorporate socioeconomic ideas to socialism, but socialism, at least in simple dictionary definition, at it's core is equitable sharing of resources for all. So tell me where "totalitarian" of socialism comes in, "by definition" too no less, professor."

My tone? Well, if I have a tone, ok, I'll be more colloquial... don't use words you don't understand as insults. "equitable sharing of resources for all"... extremely simplistic definition but if that is your view how can you not see it as totalitarian? Find me a way for this to be done without a gun or the threat of a gun behind it. None of that Marxist BS about how people will want a system like that "just because".

"Who said discussing a rule is socialist? I always referred back to Gerdler (cough clintonista). Gerdler's intentions were very much socialist in the principles he espouses and in the practical nature of his authoritarian tone. And that is excluding his past rant on "GDI for all" and all the other GDI based rants. I know a socialist when I see one."

Again, rules in an online game, not socialistic.


"At the heart of socialist philosophy is the concept of creating equal opportunity to succeed. Gerdler in his infinite wisdom, misguided by his recent butthurt, felt the playing field was somehow left unfair for players of his ilk. The game needed to be 'more fair'. To 'even the playing fields' some more in this highly unfair system that is currently in place. Rather than playing the game with the rules that were already established, and adapting to it, he wants changes made to enact "equitable treatment". When in reality, he just wants the game to fit a certain mold."

In fact, the game already offers equity, unless you play by a different set of rules than we do? Do you get 2 countries instead of one? Is this entire game an elaborate socialist ruse?? Come on now, not everything in life is socialist.

"In fact, authoritarianism predates written history.


Give examples where authoritarian regimes have existed before 'written history'."

Are you seriously trying to argue that point? Aristotle, Herodotus, and others all pointed to monarchs that existed in what would be known as pre-history. Egpyt is a prime example unless you consider hieroglyphs "written history".

"The idea that you make claim to knowledge and facts of something that is outside of recorded human history, in and of itself should smell funny even to the untrained eye. To argue on and on about semantics and ride on a high horse the entire time while you continue to make illogical and factually incorrect statements left and right is troubling."

The untrained eye, like yours, sure. But anyone who knows a knick about history knows that there was a long verbal succession of ideas and stories. Or did you think people couldn't talk before they could write? Do you think Homer just thought of his great epics out of nowhere?


"I mean, at this point it seems like you're pulling shyt out of your A to sound cool. But I very much would still like to 'learn' from you, what the oldest examples of authoritarianism is, pre-3XXX BC, a statement of facts backed by none other than no actual recorded history."

That period is considered "proto-history" but you're a moron, so I forgive you.