the limits of fascism

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=487130 time=1609394178 user_id=9431]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=487067 time=1609378178 user_id=11118]
You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left [/quote]
Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.
[/quote]

Which version of socialism, each of which was critically different both in ideology and circumstance, not to mention the psychology of the people, place, time?

[Scott Mayers]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

Hmmm. You don't even know what 'socialism' is. "Socialism" to me is "any system devoted to society as a whole"...versus a system that is selfishly derived by dictators or a special subset of the privileged classes only. A 'government' is NOT a private club, regardless of those who attempt and HAVE succeeded to do this in even "Socialist" labeled governments. Your own attitude IS why those 'socialist' systems fail: you MAKE them fail by embedding your own kind of thinkers IN those systems to destroy them with the very 'evil' that you claim to be on the opposite side of with your feined religiosity. I mean, government becomes a 'commodity' to exploit by conservatives. So if you can't have your dictatorship, you will do whatever it takes to destroy systems run by the people. You are the ones who would notice the opportunity of robbing a store during a protest so that you both PROFIT from the theft AND make it appear as though it were the crowd protesting. Win-win, right?

Christianity was a 'socialist' movement too. But even that has been distorted by those like your own who turn it on its head to favor the Caesars who have power and wealth and respect of those who nod at his fashionable taste in clothes. You disrespect the poor by diminishing their power-of-vote to each person per vote because you think the wealthier deserve MORE value per vote instead. That's anti-social and destructive of ANY system of government or church!

[Belinda]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

There is no such thing as "history as it is". There is much of scholarship Immanuel does not know. Besides proper amassing of evidence, historiography includes interpretation. While serious interpreters aim to be objective, IC aims to write Right wing polemics.
Another of IC's errors is his insistence the poorer sort of people seek to defraud all the more powerful sort of people. Sometimes a Right wing mentality is caused by fear of other people.

If Immanuel Can were a historiographer his attitude would lean to the political Right. More importantly Immanuel Can's bias causes him to be inefficient at amassing evidence. Immanuel Can could not even collect unbiased evidence of a recognised crime.

[henry quirk]

Politics of any view doesn't matter when the nature of abuses come from a core drive of all animals to be selfish. I think a division regarding the 'fascism' in discussion is due to those who believe a system requires serving a unique special identity-class of people based most specifically on genetics and some presumed cultural association.

So regardless of our differences here, do you guys at least agree that the problem here is about those who believe in some 'racially' defined 'culture' to govern versus those who don't? The contentious differences of rights to what is or is not one's OWN is relevant here because of our capacity to pass on environmental benefits to those we have personal connection to most personally. As such, those who embrace the racialized governments are biased to passing on 'ownership' privileges to their own while passing on debt to the outside groups BASED on those identity beliefs. This 'strengthens the strain' of purity of those in power who have this racist preference by means of eliminating those who are NOT related to them genetically and culturally. THIS is the threat of 'fascism' for the majority, especially if you are NOT in their ancestral family group and cult.



To Henry on this post:

Ownership of oneself is not in question. But this is one's OWN 'governing', not about a system involving more than oneself. So while I can agree with you in principle, I'm not sure how you can have a functioning and safe society WITHOUT government, or, depending on how far you 'minimalize' its power, what you could mean?

It serves one well IF and ONLY IF one is in power or beneficial circumstances NOW. That is, if you HAVE fortune, you don't risk the loss when and where you LACK others to possibly discover you and further 'regulate' how far you can go. So of course you favor NOT having a system that COULD look at you. But....

Do you think that YOU are imune as an individual to HARM others? Do you discount the kinds of 'harm' as existing if you don't literally observe the suffering due to what they lack where it is specifically due to what you HAVE in excess? Only a government that doesn't discriminate FOR the present ownership powers at the exclusion of the rest is a biased system that TRANSFERS the power to 'govern' to those who 'own' regardless of their worth or degree of harm they pose. A 'minimal' govenment depends on what you expect should be kept. What do you think should be kept and why?

Ownership of oneself is not in question

yeah, it is...ownness is at the root of it...what is permissible between and among men is utterly dependent on it


I'm not sure how you can have a functioning and safe society WITHOUT government, or, depending on how far you 'minimalize' its power, what you could mean?

upthread, I posted sumthin' about the 4 branches of a minarchy's government...it covers all the bases...one of the implied benefits: minarchistic gov can pick no favorites...it exists solely to safeguard individual life, liberty, and property...doesn't matter if the individual is prince or pauper


Do you discount the kinds of 'harm' as existing if you don't literally observe the suffering due to what they lack where it is specifically due to what you HAVE in excess?

seems to me if I'm not deprivin' another of his life, liberty, or property, it's none of his business what I have too much or too little of...unless he wants to transact

[henry quirk]

Scott, try this on for size...

Bill Gates has a net worth of $120.2 billion (accordin' to a net search)

me, my net worth is considerably smaller (I mean considerably smaller)

now, unless I can prove Bill has somehow deprived me of an opportunity to make money, unless I can show that Bill has deprived me of liberty or property, Bill doesn't owe me squat...I've got no claim on his wealth or resources

it may be someone out there has been hoodwinked by Bill...if so, they need to stake their claim, assert it, prove it

but the simple disparity between Bill and me doesn't entitle me to what is Bill's

my need is not a just cause to take his property

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=487189 time=1609421428 user_id=472]
Scott, try this on for size...

Bill Gates has a net worth of $120.2 billion (accordin' to a net search)

me, my net worth is considerably smaller (I mean [i]considerably[/i] smaller)

now, unless I can prove Bill has somehow deprived me of an opportunity to make money, unless I can show that Bill has deprived me of liberty or property, Bill doesn't owe me squat...I've got no claim on his wealth or resources

it may be someone out there has been hoodwinked by Bill...if so, they need to stake their claim, assert it, prove it

but the simple disparity between Bill and me doesn't entitle me to what is Bill's

my need is not a just cause to take his property
[/quote]

What's Bill's is not to have a billion times more influence on how the world is run than anyone else. That "earned" power, which is synonymous with wealth in the US, has never been justified in any sense whatsoever.

[henry quirk]

Scott, try this on for size...

Bill Gates has a net worth of $120.2 billion (accordin' to a net search)

me, my net worth is considerably smaller (I mean considerably smaller)

now, unless I can prove Bill has somehow deprived me of an opportunity to make money, unless I can show that Bill has deprived me of liberty or property, Bill doesn't owe me squat...I've got no claim on his wealth or resources

it may be someone out there has been hoodwinked by Bill...if so, they need to stake their claim, assert it, prove it

but the simple disparity between Bill and me doesn't entitle me to what is Bill's

my need is not a just cause to take his property

What's Bill's is not to have a billion times more influence on how the world is run than anyone else. That "earned" power, which is synonymous with wealth in the US, has never been justified in any sense whatsoever.

if billy-boy transacted fairly, then -- yeah -- that wealth, that influence, is his to do with as he will...he can throw his weight around as he likes, as long as he respects the lives, liberties, and properties of others...when he doesn't respect the other's life, liberty, or property, if he benefits thru theft, take him to the bank (or toss him in the slammer)

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=487193 time=1609423228 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487192 time=1609422646 user_id=15238]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=487189 time=1609421428 user_id=472]
Scott, try this on for size...

Bill Gates has a net worth of $120.2 billion (accordin' to a net search)

me, my net worth is considerably smaller (I mean [i]considerably[/i] smaller)

now, unless I can prove Bill has somehow deprived me of an opportunity to make money, unless I can show that Bill has deprived me of liberty or property, Bill doesn't owe me squat...I've got no claim on his wealth or resources

it may be someone out there has been hoodwinked by Bill...if so, they need to stake their claim, assert it, prove it

but the simple disparity between Bill and me doesn't entitle me to what is Bill's

my need is not a just cause to take his property
[/quote]

What's Bill's is not to have a billion times more influence on how the world is run than anyone else. That "earned" power, which is synonymous with wealth in the US, has never been justified in any sense whatsoever.
[/quote]

if billy-boy transacted fairly, then -- yeah -- that wealth, that influence, is his to do with as he will...he can throw his weight around as he likes, as long as he respects the lives, liberties, and properties of others...when he doesn't respect the other's life, liberty, or property, if he benefits thru theft, take him to the bank (or toss him in the slammer)
[/quote]

Your assumptions that law is an apt arbiter of right and wrong and that unearned power isn't inherently problematic for everyone else are quaint and you should see a psychiatrist immediately.

That wealth and power are conflated is an existential problem. The skills and abilities required to accumulate wealth are to be successful in a bullshit game that is stacked against almost everyone. It is an entirely different skill set to use wealth OR power wisely with regard to how it effects others, which does NOT get measured in a capitalist wealth accumulation system.

If there was no state to (theoretically) keep that imbalance in check i'd have to kill all rich people by default for my own protection because that wealth imbalance will not only hypothetically interfere with my life, it's guaranteed.

Capitalism IS hiding externalities. Moral maturity IS accounting for externalities.

[henry quirk]

Your assumptions that law is an apt arbiter of right and wrong and that unearned power isn't inherently problematic for everyone else are quaint and you should see a psychiatrist immediately.

you: bill gates has too much!

me: did he steal it?

you: he didn't earn it!

me: did he steal it?

you: yes, cuz he didn't earn it!

me: okay...prove it...prove he didn't earn it...prove that his not earning it is theft...prove that he deprived others of property

as for my psychiatric needs: that's the kettle callin' the pot black


That wealth and power are conflated is an existential problem. The skills and abilities required to accumulate wealth are to be successful in a bullshit game that is stacked against almost everyone. It is an entirely different skill set to use wealth OR power wisely with regard to how it effects others, which does NOT get measured in a capitalist wealth accumulation system.

all quite irrelevant

bill belongs to himself

bill's life, liberty, and property are his

bill's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

if you think bill has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived others, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, then prove it

[Immanuel Can]

"Socialism" to me is "any system devoted to society as a whole".

That is not the common definition of "Socialism." For example, see: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Soc ... lism%22%5D.

So you're going to have to be clear, Scott, that the government you're wanting to see come about is NOT what everybody else calls "Socialism."

Your own attitude IS why those 'socialist' systems fail: you MAKE them fail

I promise you, Scott, I have personally not made any Socialist system fail. Not one. All the Socialist systems that have failed, which is all that have ever existed, have failed for their own reasons. I was not even present when they failed.

But I think you're onto something very important when you say it's an "attitude" that causes Socialism always to fail: it's the attitude that assumes human beings can always be trusted to do the right thing. It's also the attitude that says that the real problems with people and society are economic, not spiritual. And it's the attitude of trust of big government to deliver us all from sin, that invariably opens the door the tyrants and despots to take over a Socialist state and kill its people.

All these things are bad "attitudes" that are implicated in Socialism. However, I do not participate in any of them.

Christianity was a 'socialist' movement too.

No, no, Scott: it was not. That's a myth.

Socialism, as you see above in the definition, did not even exist at that time, for one thing. For another, Christ said things like "The poor you will always have among you," and Paul said, "Tell the rich to be generous." These are not things one says in a Socialist state. In a Socialist state, all one says is "Take what the government gives you."

[Immanuel Can]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

There is no such thing as "history as it is".

Yeah, yeah...the old nonsense about "History is just a tale told by the winners."

But actually, there is something that's "history as it is." For example, dead bodies are dead bodies. 140 million people died in the last century alone at the hands of Socialist regimes. That's not something that changes with a different "telling" of the story. Dead is dead.

[Belinda]

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

There is no such thing as "history as it is".

Yeah, yeah...the old nonsense about "History is just a tale told by the winners."

But actually, there is something that's "history as it is." For example, dead bodies are dead bodies. 140 million people died in the last century alone at the hands of Socialist regimes. That's not something that changes with a different "telling" of the story. Dead is dead.

But historiographers select which statistics are relevant. Think for a second and you might understand it is impossible to include every statistic.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as "history as it is".

Yeah, yeah...the old nonsense about "History is just a tale told by the winners."

But actually, there is something that's "history as it is." For example, dead bodies are dead bodies. 140 million people died in the last century alone at the hands of Socialist regimes. That's not something that changes with a different "telling" of the story. Dead is dead.

But historiographers select which statistics are relevant.

140 million. There's not another statistic in the history of dead people that comes even close.

I'd say that's pretty darn relevant, wouldn't you?

[Belinda]

Yeah, yeah...the old nonsense about "History is just a tale told by the winners."

But actually, there is something that's "history as it is." For example, dead bodies are dead bodies. 140 million people died in the last century alone at the hands of Socialist regimes. That's not something that changes with a different "telling" of the story. Dead is dead.

But historiographers select which statistics are relevant.

140 million. There's not another statistic in the history of dead people that comes even close.

I'd say that's pretty darn relevant, wouldn't you?

There are more dead people than 140 million. The 140 million you quote did not die of socialism.

[Belinda]

But historiographers select which statistics are relevant.

140 million. There's not another statistic in the history of dead people that comes even close.

I'd say that's pretty darn relevant, wouldn't you?

There are more dead people than 140 million. The 140 million you quote did not die of socialism. All of those would have died anyway, and some of those died despite socialism.

Jesus was a prototype for socialists and if you deny that fact you do not know what socialism means.