the limits of fascism

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=487241 time=1609442021 user_id=12709]
[quote=Belinda post_id=487240 time=1609441943 user_id=12709]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=487238 time=1609441562 user_id=9431]

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?
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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

*archetype

[Immanuel Can]

The 140 million you quote did not die of socialism.

Yeah, actually, they did. They died in purges, in executions, in gulags, in mass starvations, in killing fields, in prison camps, in ethnic cleansing, and at the hands of the secret police, and all sorts of the wonderful things the Socialists have produced.

Socialism really is a fantasyland of murder.

Jesus was a prototype for socialists

Heh. Sorry, that's just not true at all.

Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world." The Socialists insist, "The only kingdom is this world." Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The Socialists say, "Kill Caesar and seize his empire for the common good, and there is no God."

I could go on at great length giving you examples. I gave two more in my previous message, if you're curious But people who have been told that myth tend to believe the myth, regardless of having no facts to support it; so I'll save my breath.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=487249 time=1609445027 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487246 time=1609444359 user_id=15238]
The 140 million you quote did not die of socialism.
[/quote]
Yeah, actually, they did. They died in purges, in executions, in gulags, in mass starvations, in killing fields, in prison camps, in ethnic cleansing, and at the hands of the secret police, and all sorts of the wonderful things the Socialists have produced.
[/quote]

There is nothing in socialism that says "it's ok to murder people". You just made that shit up.

[Immanuel Can]

There is nothing in socialism that says "it's ok to murder people".

No; but they all end up doing it. 100% of the time, as a matter of fact. Every Socialist regime has killed people in great numbers: Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Romania, Bulgaria, Germany, North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe...

You see, Socialism is utopian. When it starts to fail, its proponents look for scapegoats. "It's the counter-revolutionaries, the intellectuals, the conservatives, the moderates, the kulaks, the Jews, the religious, the traditionalists, the capitalists"...and so on, they decide. And they decide that these kinds of people can be rounded up, "re-educated," abused, deprived and killed. After all, why not? They're enemies of the common good...

Next, they go looking in their own ranks as well...looking for traitors, people with a different flavour of Socialism, or even for moderates, for folks not sufficient committed to the principles of the revolution. And they purge them. They are the next lot to the prison camps.

But Socialism still continues to fail. So the ruling caste starts eating the flesh of the ordinary people. They are all transformed into new enemies for the revolution to hate, new explanations of why the Socialist heaven is not yet upon us, new explanations of the failure of Socialism to deliver on its promises...

So the bureaucrats and autocrats at the top of the Socialist pecking order -- the Lenins and Stalins, the Pol Pots and Mugabes -- have to keep finding enemies of the revolution to blame and execute. Because the one thing they're darn well not going to admit is that Socialism is an economic and social disaster, and that their promised utopia is just never going to come.

So it's never long after the revolution that the gulags open. The first produces the second. So Socialism inevitably has within it the seeds of murder.

That's the way it's played out in 100% of the cases in history. And 100% is a pretty darn impressive statistic.

[Advocate]

>No; but they all end up doing it. 100% of the time, as a matter of fact. Every Socialist regime has killed people in great numbers: Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Romania, Bulgaria, Germany, North Korea, Cambodia, Zimbabwe...

100% of capitalist regimes kill just as many people, but it is inherent in capitalism to hide externalities in a way that most versions of socialism do not.

>But Socialism still continues to fail. So the ruling caste starts eating the flesh of the ordinary people. They are all transformed into new enemies for the revolution to hate, new explanations of why the Socialist heaven is not yet upon us, new explanations of the failure of Socialism to deliver on its promises...

Are you just going to ignore the fact that 100% of the times socialism has been tried at scale it has been actively interfered with by capitalism? That's just one angle.

[Immanuel Can]

capitalist regimes kill just as many people

Actually, nothing remotely close. No death camps and death marches, no gulags, no "re-education" programs, no secret police, no killing fields, no ditches in the woods...statistically, the people in capitalist countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, are the most free, most affluent, most opportunity-rich people in the world.

As somebody said during the Cuban Crisis: "Doesn't anybody notice that all the boats are going one way?"

Are you just going to ignore the fact that 100% of the times socialism has been tried at scale it has been actively interfered with by capitalism?

Proof, dear sir? Or are you just starting the excuses for Socialist failure again? Will the "capitalists" be the first you send to the gulags?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=487261 time=1609448255 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487259 time=1609447985 user_id=15238]
capitalist regimes kill just as many people[/quote]
Actually, nothing remotely close. No death camps and death marches, no gulags, no "re-education" programs, no secret police, no killing fields, no ditches in the woods...statistically, the people in capitalist countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, are the most free, most affluent, most opportunity-rich people in the world.

As somebody said during the Cuban Crisis: "Doesn't anybody notice that all the boats are going one way?" :shock:

[quote]Are you just going to ignore the fact that 100% of the times socialism has been tried at scale it has been actively interfered with by capitalism? [/quote]
Proof, dear sir? Or are you just starting the excuses for Socialist failure again? Will the "capitalists" be the first you send to the gulags?
[/quote]

So the critically important bit about inherently hiding externalities (not to mention interference) isn't a relevant part of your response? The most recent example i'm aware of is Venezuela. I try not to watch the news any more now.

[Immanuel Can]

So the critically important bit about inherently hiding externalities...

What does that even mean? If I had any idea, I might even have a response to it.

The most recent example i'm aware of is Venezuela. I try not to watch the news any more now.

I believe you. Why would anybody want to see what Socialism really does? Personally, I would wish its entire history, its present and its alleged future wiped from human memory. We'd all be better for it. However, it is what it is; and better we should look at the grim reality than that we should subject ourselves to delusions and embark on a course to make the same mistakes that all the previous Socialists have also made.

[Belinda]

The 140 million you quote did not die of socialism.

Yeah, actually, they did. They died in purges, in executions, in gulags, in mass starvations, in killing fields, in prison camps, in ethnic cleansing, and at the hands of the secret police, and all sorts of the wonderful things the Socialists have produced.

There is nothing in socialism that says "it's ok to murder people". You just made that shit up.

True.

From each according to their ability : to each according to their need. There is nothing there about terrorising people to conform to any political regime. Socialism became politicised by bad men and their secret police cronies.

"Render unto Caesar" Jesus recognised men are impure, and He sought to show how the Kingdom of Heaven might be aspired to . In the midst of evil it is often possible to aspire to truth and goodness.

Politicalisation of 'From each according to their ability: to each according to their need' was bound to happen and that is what Jesus meant by "Render unto Caesar". Caesar stands for imbalance of power which pertains to Earthly rulers and which we know exists; and what we can do about this inequality is remember the Kingdom of Heaven where there is no inequality.

[Belinda]

Yeah, actually, they did. They died in purges, in executions, in gulags, in mass starvations, in killing fields, in prison camps, in ethnic cleansing, and at the hands of the secret police, and all sorts of the wonderful things the Socialists have produced.

There is nothing in socialism that says "it's ok to murder people". You just made that shit up.

True.

From each according to their ability : to each according to their need. There is nothing there about terrorising people to conform to any political regime. Socialism became politicised by bad men and their secret police cronies.

"Render unto Caesar" Jesus recognised men are impure, and He sought to show how the Kingdom of Heaven might be aspired to . In the midst of evil it is often possible to aspire to truth and goodness.

Politicalisation of 'From each according to their ability: to each according to their need' was bound to happen and that is what Jesus meant by "Render unto Caesar". Caesar stands for imbalance of power which pertains to Earthly rulers and which we know exists; and what we can do about this inequality is remember the Kingdom of Heaven where there is no inequality.

In addition to Jesus as champion of the poor, the dispossessed, the criminal, the sick, and the despised, he also came to bring sword . Wars and revolutions are sometimes justified. There are rules of combat in place today, that legislate against unfair and cruel aggression towards civilians and prisoners.

[Skepdick]

Actually, nothing remotely close. No death camps and death marches, no gulags, no "re-education" programs, no secret police, no killing fields, no ditches in the woods...statistically, the people in capitalist countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, are the most free, most affluent, most opportunity-rich people in the world.

Look how you left out China.

Queue the "China's not capitalist" apologetics...

[Scott Mayers]

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

I'm not against the idea of having fortune. But there is a problem about limited resources.

I default to recognizing we live in a limited finite space in limited finite time. You are assuming frontiers still exist for all as though we all have the identical power as those who completely cover 'ownership' of all property that exists and is available. You are assuming that those born on this Earth are not 'disadvantaged' even where they lack ANY representation of power.

If people were not 'slaves' to anyone, no one COULD be ''wealthier" than another. Wealth is not some trivial personality or flavor that one 'chooses' to resist. It represents power and thus means that those who 'own' also OWN those who reside on their 'property'. We define OUT 'slavery' as though it doesn't exist without literal chains. But it still exists. For the owner class, they hold all the power OVER those that exist on Earth for merely being born here (as though the poor are aliens that can simply chose to 'float' if they don't want to pay the 'taxes' of the owners demands. Notice that 'tax' is any burden, not just the supposedly hard suffering that the 'owner' classes constantly complain about for having to pay to government. I find this too BLINDLY ignoring their fortune, or, like an immature one year old, as though if you cannot SEE other's conditions of suffering by thinking that ALL people exist through your perception of reality.

The very 'ownership' classes DEPEND on their position of power to steal or enslave those without ownership privileges by the nature of them being able to 'tax' them based upon how desperate they are. The more desperate, the more unfair the owner can be by simply SETTING the terms without negotiation about what 'tax' they can charge. That is 'supply-side' economics. If you HAVE the supply, as ownership implies, you hold power AND WILL ABUSE it. This is NOT something either that can be assured NOT to happen. The owner who also DOESN'T take derogatory advantage of others for 'profit' do not prevent those who do. The greed factor is what that 'incentive' is that permits the abuses.

I'm not against owners IF and ONLY IF it is literally true that ALL people HAVE it with IDENTICAL initial conditions and with the same 'right' to fail as often. [This is ignored by most of you guys: that the poor person required to LABOR for the 'owner' is not allowed to fail without grave consequences more than once, for most. If you get a job in which you fail for whatever reason (not necessarily one's 'own' fault), then they get a bad record on their resume and it could be enough for another 'owner' to opt NOT to hire them OR, what the exploiters who make those Billionaires exist, to make them work harder for less.

To you who declare yourselves 'religious', you also impose upon the poor that they should ACCEPT their misfortune (and 'volunteer' to be slaves with cheerfulness) because some 'god' will FIX things in some glorious afterlife for them. Oddly, I don't get why they themselves don't take this advice and PROVE their religious conviction they impose upon the others by giving everything they 'own' away. Would this not be PROOF for their 'god' that they both believe in the crap they AND that they are not intentionally attempting to decieve the poor by giving them false hope. This world is NOT about 'positive' WILL POWER that the wealthy have over the poor. This is just a con meant to keep their slaves under their thumb.

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, nothing remotely close. No death camps and death marches, no gulags, no "re-education" programs, no secret police, no killing fields, no ditches in the woods...statistically, the people in capitalist countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, are the most free, most affluent, most opportunity-rich people in the world.

Look how you left out China.

Purely accidental. I'll put them in now.

Queue the "China's not capitalist" apologetics...

Unnecessary. They are what's called Red Capitalists, which means the strategic use of elements of Capitalism overlaid on the core values of Communism. But Communism decidedly still rules all there.

[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

I'm not against the idea of having fortune. But there is a problem about limited resources.

I default to recognizing we live in a limited finite space in limited finite time. You are assuming frontiers still exist for all as though we all have the identical power as those who completely cover 'ownership' of all property that exists and is available. You are assuming that those born on this Earth are not 'disadvantaged' even where they lack ANY representation of power.

If people were not 'slaves' to anyone, no one COULD be ''wealthier" than another. Wealth is not some trivial personality or flavor that one 'chooses' to resist. It represents power and thus means that those who 'own' also OWN those who reside on their 'property'. We define OUT 'slavery' as though it doesn't exist without literal chains. But it still exists. For the owner class, they hold all the power OVER those that exist on Earth for merely being born here (as though the poor are aliens that can simply chose to 'float' if they don't want to pay the 'taxes' of the owners demands. Notice that 'tax' is any burden, not just the supposedly hard suffering that the 'owner' classes constantly complain about for having to pay to government. I find this too BLINDLY ignoring their fortune, or, like an immature one year old, as though if you cannot SEE other's conditions of suffering by thinking that ALL people exist through your perception of reality.

The very 'ownership' classes DEPEND on their position of power to steal or enslave those without ownership privileges by the nature of them being able to 'tax' them based upon how desperate they are. The more desperate, the more unfair the owner can be by simply SETTING the terms without negotiation about what 'tax' they can charge. That is 'supply-side' economics. If you HAVE the supply, as ownership implies, you hold power AND WILL ABUSE it. This is NOT something either that can be assured NOT to happen. The owner who also DOESN'T take derogatory advantage of others for 'profit' do not prevent those who do. The greed factor is what that 'incentive' is that permits the abuses.

I'm not against owners IF and ONLY IF it is literally true that ALL people HAVE it with IDENTICAL initial conditions and with the same 'right' to fail as often. [This is ignored by most of you guys: that the poor person required to LABOR for the 'owner' is not allowed to fail without grave consequences more than once, for most. If you get a job in which you fail for whatever reason (not necessarily one's 'own' fault), then they get a bad record on their resume and it could be enough for another 'owner' to opt NOT to hire them OR, what the exploiters who make those Billionaires exist, to make them work harder for less.

To you who declare yourselves 'religious', you also impose upon the poor that they should ACCEPT their misfortune (and 'volunteer' to be slaves with cheerfulness) because some 'god' will FIX things in some glorious afterlife for them. Oddly, I don't get why they themselves don't take this advice and PROVE their religious conviction they impose upon the others by giving everything they 'own' away. Would this not be PROOF for their 'god' that they both believe in the crap they AND that they are not intentionally attempting to decieve the poor by giving them false hope. This world is NOT about 'positive' WILL POWER that the wealthy have over the poor. This is just a con meant to keep their slaves under their thumb.

I'd like to respond, but I'm havin' a hard time with the decipher...bottonline, you're sayin' most live in slavery to folks who control most of the finite resources, yeah?

[Advocate]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=487383 time=1609512584 user_id=11118]
[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]
I'm not against the idea of having fortune. But there is a problem about limited resources.

I default to recognizing we live in a [i]limited finite[/i] space in [i]limited finite[/i] time. You are assuming frontiers still exist [i]for all[/i] as though we all have the identical power as those who completely cover 'ownership' of all property that exists and is available. You are assuming that those born on this Earth are not 'disadvantaged' even where they lack ANY representation of power.

If people were not 'slaves' to anyone, no one COULD be ''wealthier" than another. Wealth is not some trivial personality or flavor that one 'chooses' to resist. It represents power and thus means that those who 'own' also OWN those who reside on their 'property'. We define OUT 'slavery' as though it doesn't exist without literal chains. But it still exists. For the owner class, they hold all the power OVER those that exist on Earth for merely being born here (as though the poor are aliens that can simply chose to 'float' if they don't want to pay the 'taxes' of the owners demands. Notice that 'tax' is any burden, not just the supposedly hard suffering that the 'owner' classes constantly complain about for having to pay to government. I find this too BLINDLY ignoring their fortune, or, like an immature one year old, as though if you cannot SEE other's conditions of suffering by thinking that ALL people exist through your perception of reality.

The very 'ownership' classes DEPEND on their position of power to [i]steal[/i] or [i]enslave[/i] those without ownership privileges by the nature of them being able to 'tax' them based upon how desperate they are. The more desperate, the more unfair the owner can be by simply SETTING the terms without negotiation about what 'tax' they can charge. That is 'supply-side' economics. If you HAVE the supply, as ownership implies, you hold power AND WILL ABUSE it. This is NOT something either that can be assured NOT to happen. The owner who also DOESN'T take derogatory advantage of others for 'profit' do not prevent those who do. The greed factor is what that 'incentive' is that permits the abuses.

I'm not against owners IF and ONLY IF it is literally true that ALL people HAVE it with IDENTICAL initial conditions and with the same 'right' to fail as often. [This is ignored by most of you guys: that the poor person required to LABOR for the 'owner' is not allowed to fail without grave consequences more than once, for most. If you get a job in which you [i]fail[/i] for whatever reason (not necessarily one's 'own' fault), then they get a bad record on their resume and it could be enough for another 'owner' to opt NOT to hire them OR, what the exploiters who make those Billionaires exist, to make them work harder for less.

To you who declare yourselves 'religious', you also impose upon the poor that they should ACCEPT their misfortune (and 'volunteer' to be slaves with cheerfulness) because some 'god' will FIX things in some glorious afterlife for them. Oddly, I don't get why they themselves don't take this advice and PROVE their religious conviction they impose upon the others by giving everything they 'own' away. Would this not be PROOF for their 'god' that they both believe in the crap they AND that they are not intentionally attempting to decieve the poor by giving them false hope. This world is NOT about 'positive' WILL POWER that the wealthy have over the poor. This is just a con meant to keep their slaves under their thumb.
[/quote]

Hear hear. When every sliver of land is considered owned before you're born, you can only exist anywhere with someone else's permission. Likewise if everyone else has the right not to sell you a cake/rent to you then you don't have the right to buy bread/live anywhere. And wage slavery really is slavery.