the limits of fascism

[gaffo]

Fascism is left-right blind.

No, it's not. It's Socialist. National Socialist. That's what Nazi means.

So it's Leftist.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!


please.

was Argentina (70's millitary dictatorsips killed 100 thousands) "left", Uganda in 70's kill all Indian ( racist rightwing african states).


disssopointed,


you are a good guy, and know your history, but you are remain biased per the -left right thing.

per history the left killed more, but killing is not about killer being leftwign.

its just that there were more folks living in Uekraine/Chine and the ruler were "left" at the time and did their killing.


its that simple.

of a right asshole rule chine and russsa 1/2 centruy ago they would have killed the number of folks..................


-----

really.

dissapointed, hey that ok, live a learn, i know you are a nice guy, just wrong here...........so we are fine......................but dissapointed, you do noed to re evaluage your assumption of the "left" - read up on history and see that the right can and do the same evil.

2-cents.

[Immanuel Can]

Fascism is left-right blind.

No, it's not. It's Socialist. National Socialist. That's what Nazi means.

So it's Leftist.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope. It's true. See: Oxford.

Na·zi
/ˈnätsē/
noun
noun: Nazi; plural noun: Nazis
HISTORICAL
a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

[henry quirk]

agree fully - you have understanding of nature law and liberty.

yes, I do

and I understand when government dis-embeds itself from its proper role it needs challengin'

'murican governance has dis-embeded itself from its proper role...you, I reckon, believe it can be reined in peacably, by way of the first three boxes...I believe the first three boxes are nearly exhausted, exhausted, not by ORANGE MAN, but by the systematic, decades-long, erosion of the recognition of what we agree is natural to man (his ownness)

this erosion of the recognition of natural rights is not particular or limited to repubs or dems, but is a definin' quality of the state, the leviathan our republican form of governance has degenerated into

you afirm (constantly, it seems) the constitution, but do you recognize how far we've strayed from it, from the principles codified in both declaration and constitution? do you recognize the options for remedy are dwindling? do you recognize what may be the only, dreadful, remedy?

probably not

[Scott Mayers]

Hate exists by those who are INDEPENDENT believers in SMALL governments

...
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" Frédéric Bastiat

folks like me, who look to minimize gov nearly to the point of non-existence, we're not the hateful ones

My comment is about the nature of the individual who gets the power to RULE over ALL others in contrast to a company of people who are required to negotiate what is IN COMMON.

I stated a similar but opposite concern about this quote. I'll rephrase it similar to the quote you gave of Bastiat:

If the natural tendencies of the COLLECTION of people are so bad that it is not safe to permit the ASSOCIATION of those who want to form a government, how is it that the tendencies of the INDEPENDENT RULER to be trusted MORE? Do not the minimalist of legislators and their appointed enforcers against the MANY not ENABLE the significant FLAWS that belong to all humans to flourish better when ONE person is able to get their WILL's enacted better than the if they were to be required a democratic vote? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

While having one person decide for all others is more readily able to ACT quicker and decisively, if EACH person that makes up the human race are equally flawed, what are the chances that granting blind faith in such solitary rulers is somehow MORE 'superior'? The ONLY reason that we have government's at all if it is not merely the 'private domain' of the fortunate arbitrary few individuals inheriting the thrown, is to create a system BY THE MASSES rather than BY THE FEW of which the DICTATOR who represents this fewest proves MORE LIKELY to ENACT the abusive power that each human has in them.

I find it odd that you would think that the greed concentrated in one person is less threatening than the same greed of two people who operate AGAINST each other's competing interests. You are arguing in favor of the dictator and to the selection of those who are born merely lucky or who get favored by them for being obedient.

While MORE people reduce the capacity to ACT with quick DECISIVENESS, this flaw far supercedes the risk of having FEWER people who would be able to act without concern to others'. Why should the masses vote IN such tyrannical threats that cannot be easily undone?

Note too that given the rate of action is more slow and more difficult to enact by democratic systems, about 50% of the time, the 'minimalist' tends to have at least EQUAL time in power. YET, that time they have when fewer people are running the system EASILY acts to disrupt the functioning capacity of the equal time of the democratic side. That is, because the rate of Left-wing legislation is much slower, the Rightwing capitalist who represents a much smaller part of the actual voting population gets the advantage far beyond their power as one-person-per-vote there.

And the most 'minimal' government would be one that has ZERO people, an ideal anarchist's dream, that still EMPOWERS ABSOLUTELY those who OWN as though they are 'superior' beings, ...Kings or Queens, Despots, etc.

You cannot expect the weaker masses to sit back while the 'minimalist' forms of government ONLY EMPOWER those favoring the smallest sizes. What about the proposal that police should be defunded that some on the Left proposed in what is normally the same KIND of reasoning of the minimalist you stand for? Certainly it would cost less taxes on all the people. So why do you NOT favor minimalizing that? I'm guessing your 'minimalist' idea refers to preventing government to MONITOR your decisions as 'owners' in a free way. Wouldn't this freedom be not also more favorably expressed by those 'liberated' from the policing of them too?

If you think that a 'minimal' government FAVORS the masses, then you SUPPORT the arbitrary favoritism FOR a 'minimal' subset of the population only. The richer people would have at least the same percentage of 'evil' of the whole but would be able to get away with their deviant behavior for both being empowered by their fortune of wealth AND the power should the people give them the reigns of government. Those who are equally 'evil' in the whole of society that are NOT rich have to compete against their distinct selfish driven 'evils' that diminishes their overall effectiveness when or where they participate in government.

Thus, we are MORE threatened by the conservative (minimalist) who believes intrinsically in exploiting personal economic profit motives opportunistically where they can. And would they voluntarily ignore this belief when in power? No. They would destroy those government operations that look into things like fraud and white-collar crimes, things which to me are even MORE 'evil' when you consider they CAN get away with it AND do it in a way that HIDES the accountability AND enables them to point the finger towards a some unidentifiable culprit in the crowd of their enemies instead.

If you want a minimal government, become a hermit and prove that you CAN survive independent of others. The ONLY way that ANY person can BE more successful in quantifiable dollar-value over others NECESSARILY requires AT LEAST TWO others who require failing. That is a quantifiable fact. And only the bully benefits in such exploitative environments.

[Scott Mayers]

...your 'side' is the actual problem.

Hatred and blame-shifting, Scott. Those are the first strategies Socialism uses.

Socialism ought to own its own evil. But it doesn't. It always finds somebody to blame, somebody to hate, so that it cannot itself be blamed.

What do you call what you are doing right now by blanketing the greater numbers of people as 'evil' if they get their way? Are you NOT 'blaming' the whole for your weakness as an individual in a 'spiteful' way....that leads to 'hate' when and if you were ABLE to penalize these 'evil' devils? I mean, it is you who BELIEVES in fighting for some 'righteous' invisible King's abillity to rule arbitrarily (ie, 'freely' of their innermost beliefs, whether they be fair or not to others).

Who are these 'socialists'? Are they the secret WEALTHIER (and thus most powerful) Cabul made up of ALL the rest of the population but pretending to be impoverished instead?

The Russian system didn't fail because of Capitalist spies. The Venezuelans are not starving because of "anti-revolutionaries." The Chinese government is not forced to suppress Hong Kong because evil Westerners have made them do it. Socialism does this stuff. It always does. But it never owns its own actions. It never admits that its economic failures are simply because Socialism is economically impractical and unworkable, that it has a foolish view of wealth and how it is created, that it's naive about human nature...it just joins the blame game, makes imaginary enemies, and then incarcerates, abuses and kills them.

And still, it never works.

I would be more trusting of your beliefs if YOU were NOT religious. This fact alone goes against the Darwinian idea of "survival to the fittest" in a hypocritical way. Why are you embracing the belief that independent WILL should supercede the compassion of other's interests? Your idea of freedom should suggest that you move out to the woods and survive WITHOUT the 'social' BENEFITS you gain by all the technology that the majority of people enabled to exist through SOCIAL systems. So instead of relying on the 'free welfare' you get of and by the whole, you should also be required to reconstruct all your power INDEPENDENTLY.

Any 'government' is a socialist construct PERIOD!

Nope. Any government is a "social" construct. That does not make it Socialist.

So, according to this belief, is there ANY POSSIBLE government ideal that identifies 'social' to "Socialism"? You are arrogantly picking your definitions in a way that eliminates the POSSIBLE and MORE PROBABLE likelihood of governments that call themselves 'socialist' to mean 'social' in any way. Do you think this is a clever conspiracy? Do you think the poor are secretly the rich in disguise all faking their collectivism issues?

What about the concept of public schools and universities? What about libraries. Do you think these are only things that come about successfully BY and FOR all others based on ONE person disguised as MANY? And if you do, then would you NOT agree that NO PERSON should be trusted regardless given such magical powers like this exist?

What is the likelihood that there exists NO person, like myself, who claim that 'socialism' is an ideal that government requires serving the SOCIETY rather than the INDIVIDUAL because the power of individuals' without government serves to FAVOR only the strong bullies who exploit others. I mean, why did we even ever have 'government' in the first place anywhere? Must have been some 'evil' demented INDIVIDUAL WITH EXTRAORDINARY POWER to con the masses into thinking they are better living in 'communes' called cities and towns, etc.

I repeat, if you want 'freedom' to ACT ABSOLUTELY independent of the horrible intoleration of two or more others greater than your number, go find some place out in the woods and recreate all the Social Services society had passed onto you in this system we call 'civilization'. You are acting AGAINST the interests of the masses and yet do not notice that they are actually made up OF INDIVIDUALS who also should have the identical 'freedom to choose' an ideal form of government too. Why does the richer person's 'freedom' mean MORE than others? If you assume the masses as MORE 'evil', are you not included as a member of the same species among a GREATER MASS? You are arguing for YOUR personal freedom as though you are worth more than the millions of others and deserving to rule for simply having a million dollars more than each of them. Why do YOU deserve such special protections and status of 'freedom'?

Again, you don't know what most people think Socialism is. You're using a definition that's unique to Scott. You didn't like my last website, so let me give you one that's suitably "neutral": here's Webster:

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition 3, we can set aside, because it treats Socialism as a mere stepping-stone to full blown Communism: and I'm guessing you don't want to advocate for that. So that leaves us with definitions 1, and 2a and b.

Happy?

The definition of the first is the principle GENERAL concept that covers 'socialism' here. I defend that because it minimally means for all such proposed VARIATIONS of opinions, the common idea that a system should be run by the people it serves to make rules for versus the selfish whims of individuals who think they are 'superior' than two or more people. Government is NOT a mere policing service for the rich against the poor as the opposing views suggest. Government 'ownership' is the 'collective' ownership of ALL of us, including YOU. What you want is a system that disfavors the majority for your arrogant and selfish purposes. The very people who PERMITTED you the means of 'ownership' rights at all would not exist either without support of laws that grant you those very rights as a PRIVILEGE ONLY. Are you proposing to do away with the same system that CONSTRUCTED the laws that favor your privileged status while you simultaneously REMOVE the privilege of those 'social services' that require recognizing the PEOPLE OWN THE EARTH as a whole with PRIORITY?

You are anti-democratic (for favoring a system run by a few), pro-supremist thinking (for evaluating your OWN as more superior over others), hateful (for assuming the poor are MORE greedy to demand 'ownership' of ANY part of this world in contrast to your LOVED ones), and anti-rationalist (in that you intrinsically believe in preventing the masses a means to be permitted a right to debate rationally through imposed religious faith you demand be replaced for the 'social services' a socialist government supplies.

As to public 'ownership', the police and military are 'owned' by the government. I doubt you want that removed. Because 'ownership' merely means CONTROL POWERS of other's behaviors in your 'domain' of your private personal will, do you think military and police too should also be removed?

What about public ACCESS ways? I take strong issue against PRIVATE railway companies who have special police powers to 'troll' those who pass over what they deem is THEIR private property. As such, if one of their train tracks cuts across your path, do you think their 'rights' of ownership can permit them to privately ban people from crossing without being taxed (like the Romans did and what gave rise to Chrisitanity, for instance)?

Those libraries, the schools, the water ways, the roads, the sewers, the airways, the media, are ALL social constructs that a 'socialist' government supports. They cannot HAVE certain necessary powers without OWNING the right to alter laws in public domains. And it is the collective OWNERSHIP of us all, not some remote concept of 'government' as though they are a mystical entity separated from the people. Your alternative ideals are to either have a government that acts as a WEAPON against those poor whom you believe in keeping poor and disenfrancized OR have no government (by the people) other than privately owned power in the hands of non-accountable people who OWN the WEAPONS directly themselves.

See? That's exactly what Socialists always do. They find somebody else to blame. "The revolution has been betrayed from without and within," they cry, "that's why it has not succeeded yet." Then, "Kill the traitors," comes next.

You're just demonstrating the truth of my thesis, Scott. Socialism needs to hate. It needs enemies to blame. Because on its own, it's inevitably a failure.

Excuse me? Define this 'hate'.

Happily.

Did you not accuse me, or people like me, of being the cause of Socialism's perennial dysfunctionality?

No. I accuse the nature of the 'greed' existing in all of us as at fault GENETICALLY. But while this nature EXISTS EVERYWHERE, your political view (conservative) believes in ENHANCING this power by DEFAULT to those who have privilege of power by default. The 'socialist' Left believes in curbing this tendency but still has many groups of supporters there that represent YOUR view who are 'riding' the democratic side until and unless they themselves could get the replaced opportunity to rule. Your ideology is hard to NOT be favored by the 'groups' that still believe as you do but are NOT in the relative position to exercise their will in practice. As such, they act IN the Left but are Rightwinged ideologists in principle. And this is NOT all groups and certainly NOT the individuals apart from them. The example is to the Matriarchalist extreme of Feminists that have been presiding there who believe in a type of woman-supremacy in direct competition to the Patriarchalist extremes of Male-dominating-supremacists that are presently in MORE power on the Right.

Notice how the 50% division of practiced 'right-left' parties in power throughout time suggests a division based upon GENDER extremes of the patriarchal/matriarchal variety? Note that the stereotype of the male-dominators on the Right have the physical qualities of default 'strength' that both money and power represent? Notice how the coincidence of rise in 'socialism' corresponds to the same rise in power of the rights of women to vote, work, and succeed independent of male-dominating dependency that the conservative still favors of their own wives to be submissive? How do you presume the 'masculine' politics of conservatives are somehow MORE compassionate and non-violent than the 'feminine' politics of the liberal side? See how 'liberal' means to LIBERATE those,....a 'freedom' that you'd expect your mother to grant you more stereotypically than the male-dominated societies that have existed through time?

If you agree to this division as existing, as I think you might, would you reinterpret which side has the stereotypes most associated to the 'evils' or 'virtues' of various conducts you just accused of the "socialists"? Given the division is partly due to the genetics of men and women, AND the relative recent existence of civilization, which of the two gender-favoring-views would be most associated with direct violence, bullying, and dominateering totalitarian abuses? The Right's Masculine conservative OR the Left's Feminine 'socializing' tendency?

[I think I'm onto something here thanks to this debate, by the way. Even if you were to disagree, isn't this a good comparison at issue that could be a possible means of reconciling the differences of political tensions?]

Note that your continued attempt at linking the Nazis to the Left is way off. And using this analogy of the feminine-masculine distinction should help prove this. Also, given the genetics are still embedded deep in us regardless of intellectual advancements, do you not notice that it would be MORE likely than not that MEN on the LEFT would be the ones who turn the ideals of 'socialism' there into the intolerant behaviors most associated to the RIGHT? Note too that the Ku Klux Klan, the Neo-Nazis, the various Religious Cults, the Con artists, the Street and Bike gangs, all presently voted for Trump!! So stop placing the "socialist' as at some intrinsic cause. Otherwise, point to the literal women that should have ruled throughout "socialist" times that have done the same 'evil' as leaders there. Note how the dominance of masculinity still would dominate with regards to 'coups' within the Left that turn what was 'democratic' into those dictators of noted 'evils'?

I think you need some time to reflect on this better.

I couldn't even interpret what you said in this last quote given it is blurring the boundaries of whether you are speaking of the 'democratic view' versus the 'authoritarian' view.

They end up being identical. Always, a strongman takes over Socialism and uses it for his purposes. Then it's authoritarian. Want me to name them? How about Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, Tito, Kim Jung, Mugabe, Maduro... There is always one, eventually.

See the pattern?

You are blaming the GENERAL philosophy of "socialism" for the CAUSE that is due to that male-dominating factor that exists in those historical societies. For those particular named 'evil (male) abusers' who have taken over those systems, I ask you what happened to the eternal foundation of abusive civilizations that existed BEFORE the mere 1800s. You are bound to have the novel "socialist" ideas make mistakes that the conservative side has represented abusively to all other societies before then.

It is also an irrelevant appeal when the INTENT of the defining system is what matters. Tell me, HOW does the idea of having compassionate services for the poor through taxing others turn into something about genocides and wars and crime? You toss out the IDEA simply for the irrelevant association of the WEAKNESS of those on the LEFT. Again, using the feminine/masculine comparison to the Left/Right politics, you are ignoring how women (half of the population) have been without experience POWER throughout all of time with respect to GOVERNING issues beyond the household chores and baby creation mechanisms. The weakness of the "left" is due to this and it makes it easy for exploiters that are still 'conservative' in mind-set there to use this to turn that side into an 'alternative-Right' under the banner of "socialism" that no longer existed in those named abusers you mentioned. Socialism itself is not the cause. And in fact, the hate and violence throughout all times prior to the rise of equality for women could ONLY come from the dominating masculinity of governments of most of all history. I also think that ANY 'civilization' concept itself had to derive from the 'societies' of women who had to be less transient to the to moving tribes, became the factors associated with agriculture and security. Thus the feminine factor is what initially caused ANY concept of civility at all AND are the same ones at 'fault' for the very "social" ideals that derived the "leftwing" ideas most.

Are you then not implying that Jesus rode in on a royal horse (versus the donkey),

Why would that follow?

Feigning ignorance? Now given what I just said above, I think you SHOULD be able to notice that the 'donkey' represented the weak secondary citizen as subject to the King; in contrast you falsely reinterpreted Jesus' intended reason to assert that he is a "je suis christos" (I am a king) as though he was declaring some highbrow 'supremacist' view that he believe he WAS the literal KING! And so I am saying that your views falsely align to him as declaring himself AS the rightful KING over the Caesar, when he was not. He was mocking those who DO grant authority to the wealth and powerful, as the Caesar and his favored Roman rulers might have granted virtue to. Thus he was saying that ALL PEOPLE ARE RIGHTFULLY "OWNERS" OF THIS EARTH, not your favored rich people.

Karl Marx was a political philosopher primarily.

Well, by any fair assessment, he was a very evil man.

Biography is merely ad hominem, but the truth is that he never really actually knew any poor people. Or check that: he knew one, who was his housekeeper, whom he sexually abused, and by whom he had a child. Other than that, he never dirtied his hands with the masses. But the main source of his wickedness was the philosophy he espoused, which many have followed to the point of killing more human beings than for any other cause in human history. That's a pretty wicked thing to have on one's conscience.

Wow. This reminds me of how your own "Chritian" extremists attempted to malign the credibility of Darwin by asserting that he was religious or that he disavowed his trust in his theory on his death bed!

If your reason seems rational, how does the nature of what one does as a profession be LINKED logically to any extraneous behaviors not associated to it? Most 'heroes' of all time were drastically flawed in some way. Almost all the scientists of the past were 'deviant' in some social way, regardless and independent of their contributions to society. Much of the inspiration to be more INTROVERTED itself is due to both abuses of others to them AND to their reflexive behaviors elsewhere. Do you find anything in Karl Marx's actual works that say, "rape your housekeeper"? As to his wealth, the tendency to be able to focus on intellectual activities, especially when at the foundations of such ideas, come from people that REQUIRE more time to think rather than labor, just as most of us here do. The 'wealth' is irrelevant. Again, as I noted above,I am not against 'wealth'. I am against the genetic nature of GREED within us that wealth only ENABLES one to succeed at better than their counterparts on the impoverished side. The reason you see jails filled up of the poor is due to the fact that they do not have the PRIVILEGE to think when they have to worry about where they are getting their next meal from or to pay up their rent, etc.

Greed is enabled by wealth. But one who is 'wealthy' doesn't necessarily mean they are 'evil'. This actually helps support my view too. The fact that those poor do not have the freedom nor 'right' to think as fair as those who have money. As such, wouldn't things like those 'socialist' programs that help them be fed and sheltered, that educate them, and enable them to have time to make errors without being permanently scarred for life, suggest a justified reason FOR such "socialism"? I forgot to mention health care too! Do you think only the rich should be permitted appropriate care?

why are you STEALING God's POWER to final judgement

I do no such thing....as if I even could. The final judgment is God's. But he also told us we could and should judge evil by what it does. In fact, did you know that there are far more commands in Scripture about things we are required to judge than about things we should not? It's true. We're instructed to judge all kinds of evil and avoid it.

But Final Judgment? You're right: that's nobody's but God's. I never said anything different.

I dare you to prove that you ACTUALLY believe by giving up all your wealth voluntarily and help others in ACTION.

And then use it to impress you? I think that would actually be very arrogant.

You seem to imagine me as a wealthy man, Scott; compared to the Developing World, perhaps I am. I'm certain you are, too, because I have seen how much of the world actually lives. In their eyes, I may be rich; but not by many standards. Suffice to say, I have responsibility before God to share whatever I have, regardless of how much that is: so do you.

If I boasted of what I do, you would not believe me. And if I boasted, I would be a fool to do so. So you are asking for information no man is entitled to ask from another, and should not expect to receive if he did.

I was making a POINT about your supporting the wealth that makes up the power on the conservative right and to the contradicting support of irrational religious beliefs that place FAITH IN FAITH as a virtue that you expect the poor to embrace. The right-wing bosses prefer those who are isolated and desperate. But it is MOST IDEAL for them to deal with these 'peons' or 'peasants' by fostering religious thinking of the poor. The more religious you can get them, the more DOCILE as sheep they become.

Anyways, I'm glad I'm at the end of this, as much as it pleasures me to contribute in debate with you like this. Later.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

we need to clarify our above here.

1. Fascism the term refers to 1920's Italy. that state was not racist.
2. Germany 10 yrs later became the posterboy of fascism, and was also racist.
3. Fascism = Authorititarinism........so any state that is authoritarian is fascist. from Japan in ww2 to Saudi, Iran , north korea Arabia today.........BTW i would include China as a fascist state today..............and Russia who backslide in the 90's back to it via their former soviet days.

-----------------------------

per ME:

as a Libertarian, i affirm the concept of a government that rule by concent of the governed - so if most Suadis affirm their own represion - it legal. (i do not think they do - i think maybe 1/3 do - the rest are just living under it - just talking principle her.





no fan of Saudi Arabia, its a Religious Fasicist state, but not a racist one - unlike egerman prior - any sauid regardless of their race or religion can convert to islam and b affored more rights (not full rights for the gov does not affirm rights - just saying that gov is not racist and allows cconversion).

Germany realy sucked because if the were a gypsie or jew - after 41 and rconverted to christainity - you still go to the oven.

so ya EVEN the Sauidi gov is better than the Germany of ww2. - no doubt in my mind on that./

A "fascist" is anyone who supports the belief in a single culture-defined government by appealing to the "native" of some country to rise up to conserve it where they feel it is being lost. As such, the 'fasci' is from our tribal days that refers to the chiefs using weak individual straw to represent the weak and divided natives of some country and demonstrating how collectively, the bundle (called a 'fasci') make them stand strong regardless.

This is related to the National Socialists who argued for this too. The label of "fasci" is more unusual and less about the origin than to the meaning of the strengh of a COMMON strands that build the bundle, not just any random collection of things that might also make a 'bundle'.

National Socialist more correctly identifies the character implied. The "National" means the OLD meaning of what we usually refer now as "nationality" versus your official country of residence.They were trying to take over countries that they thought stole the original 'German' nationality by splitting up of the old Germanic tribes into diverse countries. The "socialist" there was just a popular term of favor by most people in all political sides and refers to maintaining some compassionate welfare. The National Socialists of Germany then meant to redesign a government that helped out the German Nationalist using programs that draw them together using 'welfare' to an extreme, ....like literally TAKING lands away from the 'foreign' non-German Nationalist and using moneys FROM the enemy as its means of helping ONLY their own. They also believed, as did the Japanese, that education and culture should be SPECIFIC to conserve a definitive respect to this new 'dream' world for their own. So they had things like the Hitler Youth act in kind to Boy Scouts with the added stricter discipline unheard of.

They happened to go against the Jew with more drive given their ideology was (at least thought) to be EMBRACING them. The fact that the Jewish communities were relatively 'closed' to the german nationalist for NOT being of their religion AND for the 'purity' of genetics implied by preventing outsiders from marrying into their fold; to the fact that the same Jews were highly unrepresentative of the wealthier plurality (as it still is today); and to the fact that during the loss in WWI, the Germans were under the auspices of NON-German Nationals whom would likely have still been Jewish dominated and run from outside influences. The Nazis, thus, adopted parts of the stricter forms of Jewish communities likely thinking that if they emmulated (what they thought) was valuable traits of the Jewish and looked upon them as co-conspiratorialists that they were embracing. They only targetted them MORE when they wouldn't voluntarily give up what they had with ease or had no place to go. Thus the genocidal solution. [They likely thought of the Holocaust as an easier and more 'compassionate' means to kill them off quick AND with less mental reflection of the German soldiers who were likely getting turned off.]

This is not to LESSEN the harm but to understand the rational motives of the concept. Initially, many, including non-Germans and Jews, might have appreciated the apparent 'positive-think' type of brainwashing we found most prevalent here in North America from the Network Marketing and business training 'cults'. But it quickly escalated into something worse.

[Immanuel Can]

...your 'side' is the actual problem.

Hatred and blame-shifting, Scott. Those are the first strategies Socialism uses.

Socialism ought to own its own evil. But it doesn't. It always finds somebody to blame, somebody to hate, so that it cannot itself be blamed.

What do you call what you are doing right now by blanketing the greater numbers of people as 'evil' if they get their way?

First of all, Scott, most people are not Socialists. Secondly, it's not them that "get their way." If they knew what they were going to "get," then no sane person would want Socialism at all...it's a horror show when it plays out. Nobody wants gulags, executions, incarcerations, surveillance, a dead economy, suspicions everywhere...

Rather, most of those who support Socialism don't even really understand the implications and history of Socialism: they just think it means they can quit work and get free stuff, or that everybody will end up equal -- all things that have never happened in human history, and never will. But they're not "evil": they're just ignorant, naive, emotional, and often a little greedy as well.

But those who DO really understand Socialism know very well how to manipulate these well-meaning naifs, and use them as fodder for their self-advancement. And that's how Socialism has played out in every case so far.

Who are these 'socialists'? Are they the secret WEALTHIER (and thus most powerful) Cabul made up of ALL the rest of the population but pretending to be impoverished instead?

Absolutely. Look at the Davos group, for example, the Klaus Schwab people who are presently the world's biggest advocates of Socialism. They're a bunch of millionaires and billionaires. Now, if they were really Socialists, the first thing they would do is give away all their own money to the poor; but you see that that is not what they do. Instead, they're seeking to use their money and power to promote the ideology for others, while keeping their own fortunes and privileges intact.

Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." A rotten tree does not produce good fruit, or a good tree rotten fruit -- because the quality of a fruit tree is defined by its fruit. The Socialist tree is full of rotten actions, of bad fruit. So don't plant one. You can see what the Davos group is really up to by what they are actually doing.

I would be more trusting of your beliefs if YOU were NOT religious.

That's not the case, actually: I'm not "religious." But I am Christian. (There's a meaningful difference, but I won't argue it with you here.) However, your decision in that regard is nothing I can change, right? If you don't trust people of my kind, I can't fix that.

Why are you embracing the belief that independent WILL should supercede the compassion of other's interests?

I'm not. You made that up. But the truth is that Socialism is not in anybody's interest, except the selfish interests of the Socialist elite. And if I have an interest here, it's in not seeing more people starved, killed and brutalized by Socialists.

Any 'government' is a socialist construct PERIOD!

Nope. Any government is a "social" construct. That does not make it Socialist.

So, according to this belief, is there ANY POSSIBLE government ideal that identifies 'social' to "Socialism"?

Socialism uses the word "social" propagandistically. It calls itself what it does in order to deceive the naive. But one can see from every case of real-world Socialism in history, that it has never been in the actually interests of a society to be Socialist.

Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

You are arrogantly picking your definitions

No, I gave you standard definitions, Scott. The last one was straight out of a dictionary. The one before was actually better, but you didn't like it.

Do you think this is a clever conspiracy?

Absolutely. You can see that it is. Socialism is just a tool of those elites who want to seize power. It's always been that, in every case in history.

What about the concept of public schools and universities?

You're mistaking the idea of "government-managed" with the idea of Socialism. Many fundamentally democratic, capitalistic economies have elements run by the government; but it's a limited government, with specific roles circumscribed by law, and it's not allowed to take over the larger economy. In Socialism, the government runs everything, and there IS no private enterprise, no more capitalism. That's one of the reasons Socialism always fails so disastrously.

Nobody says the government can't run anything, except extreme Anarchists. But lots of people point out that it can't run everything, or even succeed in running many things efficiently and well.

What is the likelihood that there exists NO person, like myself, who claim that 'socialism' is an ideal that government requires serving the SOCIETY

I think the likelihood is good that there are some. You've been one, up to this point, unless I miss my guess. But it's wrong. Comprehensive government inevitably ends up serving only the Socialist elites, and preying on the gullible, vulnerable masses. There's a 100% record of that.

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition 3, we can set aside, because it treats Socialism as a mere stepping-stone to full blown Communism: and I'm guessing you don't want to advocate for that. So that leaves us with definitions 1, and 2a and b.

Happy?

The definition of the first is the principle GENERAL concept that covers 'socialism' here.

The problem with that definition is that the government owns and administrates everything. But government does nothing well, nothing cheaply, and nothing efficiently. Governments do not generate new wealth. Socialist governments have to confiscate private property because Socialism is not productive in economic ways: if they didn't steal, they'd go bankrupt even faster than they always do.

If you want to see your economy crash, go Socialist. If you like to see people blamed, then incarcerated, then killed, go Socialist. If you like to have the secret police at your door and your neighbours ratting you out, go Socialist. If you're tired of prosperity and want to be poor, desperate, helpless and scared, go Socialist. That's what Socialism always delivers.

You are anti-democratic

Quite the opposite. I think I agree with Churchill on that: for all its faults, democracy is the best thing we can have. Socialism is not democracy: it's rule by the Socialist elite.

imposed religious faith you demand

I have not, at any time, even for a moment, or even once "demanded" any such thing...or even wished for it. You're making stuff up now, Scott.

do you think military and police too should also be removed?

Of course not. You have to get your head out of the all-or-nothing way of thinking you're presently stuck in, Scott. It is not the case that we have only two alternatives -- i.e. no government at all (Anarchism), or total government ownership (Socialism) -- neither of those alternatives make any sense at all, and neither will work, because both are idiotic extremes. You're going to have to consider the middle ground between them, which is very wide and contains many other much more sane options.

I accuse the nature of the 'greed' existing in all of us as at fault GENETICALLY. But while this nature EXISTS EVERYWHERE, your political view (conservative) believes in ENHANCING this power

No, it does not. It believes in realizing that greed exists, and so making sure that no greedy persons have so much power they can control everybody. That's why democracy has checks-and-balances, and limited terms of public office, and strict definitions of the rule-of-law...which are all instantly eliminated by Socialism, thus allowing the inherent greed of man to seize control of the machinery of government.

Scott, if people are, as we both agree, basically susceptible to greed, how is it that you believe the Socialist government won't be staffed by greedy people? Where are these "pure hearted" Socialist leaders you can trust to run every aspect of social life going to magically appear from? But if all humans are corruptible by greed, what sense does it make to give them an unchecked governmental system by which to exercise their greed?

Finally, to your comments on masculine/feminine, I don't actually believe any of that. The "patriarchy" is a myth, and doesn't hold up as a historical idea, even in a superficial way. Any real account of history shows that all of it is the combined product of men and women.

[I think I'm onto something here thanks to this debate, by the way. Even if you were to disagree, isn't this a good comparison at issue that could be a possible means of reconciling the differences of political tensions?]

I also appreciate the debate, Scott. And even if we don't end up agreeing, I respect your efforts to share your point of view. Maybe we can come to some solutions: but I think we'll find them in that middle ground I was talking about, not in either Anarchism or Socialism.

I couldn't even interpret what you said in this last quote given it is blurring the boundaries of whether you are speaking of the 'democratic view' versus the 'authoritarian' view.

They end up being identical. Always, a strongman takes over Socialism and uses it for his purposes. Then it's authoritarian. Want me to name them? How about Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, Tito, Kim Jung, Mugabe, Maduro... There is always one, eventually.

See the pattern?

You are blaming the GENERAL philosophy of "socialism" for the CAUSE that is due to that male-dominating factor...

No, I'm merely pointing out that 100% of the time, Socialism becomes that. If it happens that all the dominant leaders are male, it's only because males are always stronger and more aggressive than females. Women are capable of exactly the same sorts of cruelty, but tend to do their assassinating verbally rather than physically. Ask any woman if any other woman has every been unconscionably cruel to her. You'll find out it's universal.

Human nature is what it is. That's why whatever political system we choose must not give too much power to any of us.

Tell me, HOW does the idea of having compassionate services for the poor through taxing others turn into something about genocides and wars and crime?

I did that in my last message. I'll summarize again.

Socialism fails economically and socially immediately. It looks for scapegoats. Then it hates, incarcerates, persecutes and eliminates the scapegoats. Then it looks for more scapegoats. Then it eliminates the moderates, the differently-Soclialist and the other rivals for the agenda from its own ranks. Then it eats the flesh of ordinary people, seeking out "traitors," and "counterrevolutionaries" in the ordinary population. And it never stops until it finally collapses of its own insanity and cruelty.

That's how.

Are you then not implying that Jesus rode in on a royal horse (versus the donkey),

Why would that follow?

Feigning ignorance?

No: genuinely confused by the statement.

Now given what I just said above, I think you SHOULD be able to notice that the 'donkey' represented the weak secondary citizen

I would have never thought that was so at all. I understand the donkey to be a sort of small horse, not a "secondary citizen." I see no justification for your symbology there. Honestly, I think you're making it up.

Karl Marx was a political philosopher primarily.

Well, by any fair assessment, he was a very evil man.

Biography is merely ad hominem, but the truth is that he never really actually knew any poor people. Or check that: he knew one, who was his housekeeper, whom he sexually abused, and by whom he had a child. Other than that, he never dirtied his hands with the masses. But the main source of his wickedness was the philosophy he espoused, which many have followed to the point of killing more human beings than for any other cause in human history. That's a pretty wicked thing to have on one's conscience.

Wow....

Read a biography of Marx. Any reasonable biography of your own choosing. You'll see it's the simple truth.

I dare you to prove that you ACTUALLY believe by giving up all your wealth voluntarily and help others in ACTION.

And then use it to impress you? I think that would actually be very arrogant.

You seem to imagine me as a wealthy man, Scott; compared to the Developing World, perhaps I am. I'm certain you are, too, because I have seen how much of the world actually lives. In their eyes, I may be rich; but not by many standards. Suffice to say, I have responsibility before God to share whatever I have, regardless of how much that is: so do you.

If I boasted of what I do, you would not believe me. And if I boasted, I would be a fool to do so. So you are asking for information no man is entitled to ask from another, and should not expect to receive if he did.

I was making a POINT

Well, you don't know me at all, personally. So you haven't the foggiest idea what I do or don't do, how much "wealth" I have, or what I do with it. So it's really not a very great way to "make a point."

FAITH IN FAITH

I have never, even once, advocated this concept -- for the poor, the rich, or anybody in between.

Sometimes, Scott, I think you are trying too hard to make me the spokesperson for some set of beliefs I have never had, but which you want to speak against anyway. You speak as if I'm an Anarchist, and I'm not. You speak as if I'm an elitist, and I'm not. You speak as if I'm a superstitious religionist, and I'm not. We might have a more productive conversation if you asked me what I do believe, before you clothe me with the rags of somebody else's ideology and then criticize that.

I don't mind answering for my own beliefs: but I have no need of, no interest in, defending the ideology of the man you sometimes seem to wrongly imagine me to be. So I have a suggestion: maybe ask me before you accuse me of being the person you might be supposing. It's more vexing than useful to have to work against a stack of imaginary projections in order to get to the truth.

Still, thanks for your thoughts.

[Advocate]

>Jesus said,[color=#0000BF] "By their fruits you shall know them." [/color]A rotten tree does not produce good fruit, or a good tree rotten fruit -- because the quality of a fruit tree is defined[i] by[/i] its fruit. The Socialist tree is full of rotten actions, of bad fruit. So don't plant one. You can see what the Davos group is really up to by what they are actually doing.

The metaphor fails at point one. Growth is the metaphor for individual improvement. Building is the metaphor for collective actions.

Also, the bible is a terrible source for morality in any sense, not least of which is because it contradicts itself.

>Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

That's factually incorrect. The things you've lumped under socialism were utterly different from each other both in ideology and circumstance. You've built a straw man from invisible straws.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

That's factually incorrect.

Easy to prove. You can show that.

Give me one Socialist regime (i.e. one in which Socialism was the dominant economic-political model, with no capitalism to shore it up) that did anything other than what I have said. Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? Albania? Vietnam? Cambodia? Zimbabwe?....

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=487610 time=1609601077 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487609 time=1609600802 user_id=15238]
Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

That's factually incorrect. [/quote]
Easy to prove. You can show that.

Give me one Socialist regime (i.e. one in which Socialism was the dominant economic-political model, with no capitalism to shore it up) that did anything other than what I have said. Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? Albania? Vietnam? Cambodia? Zimbabwe?....
[/quote]

If your argument is becoming "all versions of socialism are inherently corrupt", i need only point you to the nearest successful family to debunk you forever. If you believe you can ignore the effects of both scale and interference in this vetting process, you're not judging the ideologies at all. And as always, every single example you gave was unique. Both Cuba and Venezuela, just to stick to more local/modern samples, were doing at least as well for their people as the US ever did at it's similar level of economic development, and in both cases the limiting factor was the US's interference, regardless of what it might have been otherwise.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

That's factually incorrect.

Easy to prove. You can show that.

Give me one Socialist regime (i.e. one in which Socialism was the dominant economic-political model, with no capitalism to shore it up) that did anything other than what I have said. Cuba? Venezuela? Russia? Albania? Vietnam? Cambodia? Zimbabwe?....

i need only point you to the nearest successful family...

So you think "Socialist" means "a family"? Oy vey.

Not one regime can you point to. The only two you mention are Cuba and Venezuela, two of the most disastrous brutal dictatorships, allegedly Socialist economies in recent history, both guilty of starving, impoverishing, brutalizing and killing many of their own people.

[henry quirk]

My comment is about the nature of the individual who gets the power to RULE over ALL others in contrast to a company of people who are required to negotiate what is IN COMMON.

I stated a similar but opposite concern about this quote. I'll rephrase it similar to the quote you gave of Bastiat:

If the natural tendencies of the COLLECTION of people are so bad that it is not safe to permit the ASSOCIATION of those who want to form a government, how is it that the tendencies of the INDEPENDENT RULER to be trusted MORE? Do not the minimalist of legislators and their appointed enforcers against the MANY not ENABLE the significant FLAWS that belong to all humans to flourish better when ONE person is able to get their WILL's enacted better than the if they were to be required a democratic vote? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

you don't seem to understand Bastiat's point: free men require no regulators or legislators

take my minarchy: I suggest we have constables to investigate claims of life, liberty, or property violation; arbiters to lay to rest, one way or another, claims of life, liberty, or property violation; a border patrol to defend against invasion (which is nuthin' but large-scale violation of life, liberty, and property); and, the militia, to defend against over-reach by the first three branches of the nightwatchman proxy (in essence, to defend against large-scale internal violations of life, liberty, and property)

the law...

*a man belongs to himself

*a man's life, liberty, and property are his

*a man'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

...is non-negotiable, contains no loopholes, requires no amendment

all that is required is observance of the law: no legislators or regulators need apply


I find it odd that you would think that the greed concentrated in one person is less threatening than the same greed of two people who operate AGAINST each other's competing interests.

but I don't think that, scott...nuthin' I've posted sez or hints at such a thing...what makes you think I support such a thing?


You are arguing in favor of the dictator and to the selection of those who are born merely lucky or who get favored by them for being obedient.

no sir, I am not


You cannot expect the weaker masses to sit back while the 'minimalist' forms of government ONLY EMPOWER those favoring the smallest sizes.

I don't expect or crave such a thing


What about the proposal that police should be defunded that some on the Left proposed in what is normally the same KIND of reasoning of the minimalist you stand for? Certainly it would cost less taxes on all the people. So why do you NOT favor minimalizing that? I'm guessing your 'minimalist' idea refers to preventing government to MONITOR your decisions as 'owners' in a free way. Wouldn't this freedom be not also more favorably expressed by those 'liberated' from the policing of them too?

the above is so far away from anything I posted, I'm not gonna even attempt a response...I won't be pushed to defend positions not my own


If you think that a 'minimal' government FAVORS the masses, then you SUPPORT the arbitrary favoritism FOR a 'minimal' subset of the population only.

this is horse manure, plain and simple...you clearly do not understand what I've posted...read it again


Thus, we are MORE threatened by the conservative (minimalist) who believes intrinsically in exploiting personal economic profit motives opportunistically where they can.

another mistake: equatin' minarchy with conservatism


become a hermit and prove that you CAN survive independent of others.

not that it's any of your business, but I've done that...I spent a year alone, far from help, the grid, and comfort...I know, as fact, I can live independent of others


The ONLY way that ANY person can BE more successful in quantifiable dollar-value over others NECESSARILY requires AT LEAST TWO others who require failing. That is a quantifiable fact.

evidence, please

[Immanuel Can]

It's interesting that this topic is supposed to be "fascism."

But so far as I can detect, there is no "fascism" today. The Nazis ended with WW2. The Italian fascists were gone with Mussolini. Fascism in Spain was gone with Franco. There is not a single political regime in the world that is fascist anymore, unless one is prepared to identify fascism with Socialism. And there isn't even a significant presence of neo-fascists anywhere that I'm aware of, even as a minor voice or minor party.

In other words, "the limits of fascism" are WW2. And now, arguing about fascism (unless we recognize its identification with Socialism) is as irrelevant as arguing about the dangers of phrenology or the chances of a new Napoleonic invasion of Russia.

So where are these "fascists," outside of the fevered imagination of today's Leftists?

[henry quirk]

It's interesting that this topic is supposed to be "fascism."

But so far as I can detect, there is no "fascism" today. The Nazis ended with WW2. The Italian fascists were gone with Mussolini. Fascism in Spain was gone with Franco. There is not a single political regime in the world that is fascist anymore, unless one is prepared to identify fascism with Socialism. And there isn't even a significant presence of neo-fascists anywhere that I'm aware of, even as a minor voice or minor party.

In other words, "the limits of fascism" are WW2. And now, arguing about fascism (unless we recognize its identification with Socialism) is as irrelevant as arguing about the dangers of phrenology or the chances of a new Napoleonic invasion of Russia.

So where are these "fascists," outside of the fevered imagination of today's Leftists?

it's all horseshit...whole thread is an excuse to take a dump on capitalists, conservatives, repubs, and (even) libertarians (but only right libertarians...left libertarians are, I suppose, A-OK)

watch how they twist what you or I say (sometimes not twisting, but out & out lyin' about what we say) to serve their own view

these are the folks who'll leash us, for our own good

[Immanuel Can]

these are the folks who'll leash us, for our own good

That's the thing. Socialists always use the language of "caring and sharing," of "community" and "equality"; but what they mean is, "Knuckle under, Bud."