the limits of fascism

[Scott Mayers]

You have not understood the actual historical meanings about political definitions and their intents.

Yeah, I have.

I suggest you pick up a general introduction to 'political science' (as I have) in order to first get what the terms mean and not what you seem to feel they mean in light of 'values' (like 'good' or 'evil').

That's a hilarious comment, Scott. There are no objective secular accounts of "good' or "evil." Those "values" have no objectivity, and are not at all obligatory by way of any secular explanation. So no, you're not going to find that in a pool-sci textbook...and if you do, you know you've got a bad one.

You're the religious one, not me. I already recognize politics as a superficial creation. My point was that you are drawing meanings of terms that are unconventional, like assuming that fascism is a 'Left-of-center' ideal. If you believe this YOU require demonstrating proof of this interpretation.

The 'socialism' you have bias against...

I have no "bias" against Socialism, Scott...I just know what Socialism has invariably done. So do you, if you know either history or political philosophy at all.

If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*)

It is working NOW by the conventional meaning. Covid world response, for instance, is a "socialist" type response as it involves collective governments to use government power to resolve the issue. I expressed the meaning without bias to any LABELLED political party or government that uses the term. It ONLY means that those people supporting it demand a right to make laws that reflect the welfare of ALL people versus a mere subset of those with 'ownership' claims.

BUT, even if I or others were to agree to the means of survival to the fittest as 'natural',

Rationally, all evolutionists HAVE to. They believe that's what produced our "progress," so you've got to "dance with the one that brung ya."

Again, you missed the point or are likely ignoring it: You defend a system that diminishes the means of government to make laws that aide in the welfare of people without bias to their wealth, religion, or other forms of bias. Health care, public schools, libraries, civic places, conservation of parks, environmental laws, etc, are examples of SOCIALISM in practice that are very real. The opposition to this is are of SPECIAL PRIVILEGED people who think they have some 'right' over the population to rule that CONSERVES their power to rule. Your 'side' believes in laws that prevent police of the wealthy from deceptive behaviors ("deregulation") but yet believes in police to act as your privileged security guards at the expense of the people at large. Your side believes in permitting religious leaders (of your own ilk, of course) to 'dicate' what is or is not NATURAL nor valid due to some scipture you believe uniquely.

"Progress" means change where "conservative" means to keep things the way it is. If you think things are ABLE to be 'conserved', you have no need for a government BY NOR FOR the people because it would all be written and finalized by your opinion, like in some particular Scripture of yours. How you pretend that YOU represent society with better respect is beyond me.

...even IF some extreme like Communism is something to be feared, if it HAS the power, it is still abiding by the same rules of the 'Capitalist' in that they too are CAPITALIZING...

Okay. Now I know you don't even know what "Capitalism" is. Even Karl Marx won't agree with you.

Capitalism is a system that permits unlimited means of power to a select subset of those who can maximize their PRIVATE interests by taking advantage of others weaknesses at the expense of the PUBLIC interests as a whole. It favors the belief that it is alright to manipulate and decieve as a means to get ahead, including the means to use your power (via wealth) to oppositely impose restrictions upon others of the same liberty, regardless of its potential abuses.

Adam Smith expressed this concept as "the invisible hand" and regards the nature of Social Darwinianism that believes that if you LEAVE out restricting rules against OWNERSHIP privileges, society would advance better.

Given most societies today (even some Communist ones) permit SOME allowance for economic liberty, the nature of people to 'capitalize' on wealth still exists but is restricted by the 'socialist' parts of systems that do things like POLICE through regulation the very things that ALL people are liable to in their selfish interests: greed and corruption. You seem to think that something 'evil' exists on the LEFT but not on the RIGHT when the Darwinian NATURE is to be heartless and cruel. The reason you get most non-theists leaning to the LEFT (against Nature's cruelty of Darwinianism) is due to the recognition that society is itself IS an artificial construct and is only set up at all to manage change artificially, ....no matter WHICH 'government' rules.

Since ANY government is itself 'artificial', the ones that maximize the interests of MOST people serve to be most inclusive and fair. If we resort to permitting society to be run WITHOUT social interest of ALL people, you bias such systems to be ONLY management systems FOR the wealthy used to subjugate the poor. People are ALL naturally greedy (as they can be compassionate). But the 'socialist' concept (as a part of ALL governments to some degree) favors HELPING those who are Naturally (genetic) or Artificially (by ones' economic origins) disadvantaged to be permitted a FAIR right to compete.

Now, no doubt, you may interpret that the Left's use of NUMBERS of people as a force, which I would agree is correct. But what is the alternative of 'force'...

"Consent of the governed."

Force is for Socialists and other kinds of Fascists. Democracy holds that the people are competent to decide their own governance, and to hold the governors accountable.

Is it 'consent' if only the wealthy get to represent the governing body via the concept of private ownership? You prove your ignorance by aligning 'socialist' to 'fascism'. You cannot remove some form of 'socialism' to the idea of the artificial construct of government. But you CAN remove the bias of those who favor ONLY their OWN from ruling over the whole that fascism implies. Fascists are those who collect their flock based upon FAMILY associations, and by implication, their GENETIC association, any RELIGIOUS lawmaking due to their belief in their own uniquely assumed 'supreme' interests, and EXCLUDE those who are NOT aligned to their specific views. To all others NOT of their own, they are understood as meek and deserving of no protections of their system, including the means to 'own' in law whether privately OR publically.

"Communists" presume a NO specific privilege to ownership beyond one's particular needs to survive BUT that share a 'social' system that SHARES the wealth without bias to SPECIAL FAMILY associations. [That this ideal may not be met is beside the point. North Korea is NOT the ideal as it DOES tend towards National Socialism; China IS an example by contrast of a system that DOES demonstrate this as relatively sucessful.]

"Socialism" as a subset description of any government are at least those systems that merely favor departments that foster welfare considerations and public works that appeal to ALL society unbiased. When contrasted to the "Capitalist", Socialism is ONLY about the degree to which laws are made that prioritize favor to the whole or not. The Capitalist favors systems that both eliminate social supports AND empower their OWN interests uniquely regardless of bias.

Fascist governments are aligned with capitalism because it does NOT favor ALL people socially AND it empowers those SELECT to have a right to own. It does NOT imply dictatorship any more than Communism does but is 'cruel' by the fact that they eliminate the interests of minorities by excluding them up front from a right to OWN. Ownership, though, is still capitalistic to their clan among themselves. Israel is a kind of 'fascist' that is relatively friendly but 'cruel' in that they eliminate the Palestinians (or, in general for constitutional concerns), non-Jewish-Semitic peoples.

The "West" in general is 'socialist' and 'capitalist' (and even various degrees of all the other forms, for better or worse). The degree of permissiveness to allow 'liberty' by use of economic means is due to its ability to give INCENTIVE to those who would otherwise not invest. The socialist role is to admit laws that aide in EQUALIZING one's INITIAL conditions on par with those whose initial conditions are defaulted to give them an advanced lead in the race.

...if 'society' is required to respect your privilege...

I don't have a "privilege," Scott.

I was speaking of the arbitrary powers of those who have a relative advantage via that 'advanced lead in the race' I just mentioned in the last sentence.

... John Locke showed ...(t)he protection of personal property is a primary right.

"Personal property" is also protected in the socialist environment. The DEGREE to which what one 'owns' is at issue: whether one should be permitted to have MORE than one's direct personal power to claim what is one's OWN. The Capitalist extremes moves towards unlimited wealth, which is NO DIFFERENT THAN TOTALITARIANISM at its extremes (in contrast to 'communism') because it means that one can technically 'own' ALL.

Why do you presume personal property means ANY amount of such 'property'? How does ANYONE 'own' even Darwinistically what they themselves cannot personally conserve without resort to weapons that threaten those who dare to challenge such claims? Thus my argument that the whole can also declare 'OWNERSHIP' in a capitalistic way means that you should respect that the "left" is actually only ADDING their NATURAL POWER by use of numbers of people.

Furthermore, IF you accept a right to rule...

I don't.

In MY context here you do. The 'context' here is the means of what enables one to SUCCESSFULLY rule. The 'socialist' believes that PEOPLE (via their numbers) rule; the 'capitalist' believes that those with the MOST capital should rule.

[What better 'capital' does a dictator not 'own' where they exist (including any system that pretends they are not)?]

If 'theft' of property, for instance, should be paramount,...

Eh? What are you talking about?

"Theft" is never "paramount." It's a crime. It should be illegal, and it's always unethical. It's the misappropriation of somebody's personal property.

Are you retarded? I clearly laid out how the concept of 'ownership' is artificial and that the capitalist believes in a 'right' to own BEYOND one's own person and their needs. What in Nature grants 'ownership' outside of what any animal has by default and to how they can KEEP it by defending it directly. A lion, for instance, 'owns' its body but conserves it at best by its accidental fortune of being an animal at the top of the food chain AND to whether they CAN keep it without resort to some rule-book. That is, do you think that if a lion had a piece of paper that said it 'owns' some territory, that all other lions require abiding to it because it might have been signed by some invisible force? Of course it may not be able to read like we can. But IF they could, what would it mean to declare 'ownership' without the whole pride being granted the right to deny the validity of meaning of such a possible note?

You miss that 'theft' first requires an official means of ALL people to accept the meaning of what is one's "OWN" first. And if one disagrees to such a magical force of something claimed as another's how would they be able to even believe THAT what they take IS some EXTENSION of the person claiming 'ownership'?

Ownership is NO different than fiat money that people alone can trust or not. "Own" means the power to DICTATE over some 'property' absolutely. I OWN my body. I OWN where I sleep. I own the means to take food from my environment to survive. But your idea of 'own' means that you (rather than I) CAN 'own' where I sleep, you CAN 'own' what I eat, and you can OWN my body. In fact, by default of the IMPLICATIONS, you CAN potentially OWN ME in your ideal, even the 'right' to blame me for NOT OWNING as due to my own flaws, regardless of whether this is true or not.

"Theft" is something you also ignore when your ideal system DEREGULATES systems that 'police' the potential and most likely corrupt behaviors BY those who have capital without such laws. I mean, if you have no law that says, "it is theft should one take more than they give", your ideal would simply permit the richer to make them IMPOSSIBLE by DEFINITION to be ABLE to be a thief! Or, how a capitalist might expect that they should only be required to police themselves !?? You can also play lipservice to a law but prevent it from having any actual meaning for it being unable to BE policed. To me, that system is theft of the people as a whole!!

[tillingborn]

There are no objective secular accounts of "good' or "evil." Those "values" have no objectivity, and are not at all obligatory by way of any secular explanation.

The obverse is that every religious account claims that it is objective. Every objective account of good or evil demands that one religion is true. Frankly, God hasn't done a great job on telling us which religion that is.

I have no "bias" against Socialism, Scott...I just know what Socialism has invariably done. So do you, if you know either history or political philosophy at all.

If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*)

The BBC and NHS.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=503812 time=1616519371 user_id=9431]If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*) :wink: [/quote]

Fuck your wink, peckerwood. This is serious shit and you're seriously wrong. We've been over this So Many Times before. Take notes this time.

First, what you're denegrating IS NOT SOCIALISM! It's Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Cheism, post-Chavezism etc. As long as you keep ignoring that, you have nothing to say about "socialism".

Second, nearly every well-working family in the universe is primarily socialist. Which brings us to what socialism actually is.

Third, socialism is an ideology that does not imply method. It could be communist or capitalist, Meist or Youist. In order to understand it you have to break it down to what it Always is, and that's a concern for equality of concern for all people's problems.

[henry quirk]

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456

[Immanuel Can]

...assuming that fascism is a 'Left-of-center' ideal. If you believe this YOU require demonstrating proof of this interpretation.

I already did. Did you not read that?

The Nazis are "National Socialists." Look it up: you'll see I'm correct.

The 'socialism' you have bias against...

I have no "bias" against Socialism, Scott...I just know what Socialism has invariably done. So do you, if you know either history or political philosophy at all.

If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*)

It is working NOW...[/quote]
Where? Name a place.

You defend a system that diminishes the means of government

It's the opposite. I defend a system that prevents government from becoming bloated, inefficient and then dictatorial.

You're too trusting of government, Scott. Governments are made of corruptible human beings; and the bigger they are, the more corrupt they get. That's how it goes every time.

Capitalism is a system that permits unlimited means of power

No, it's not. It's an economic model, not a government model. And it's the only thing that saved Socialist China from economic collapse, actually.

...if you LEAVE out restricting rules against OWNERSHIP privileges, society would advance better.

Did you mean to say this, Scott? I think maybe you meant to assert the opposite. But it would be wrong either way.

Now, no doubt, you may interpret that the Left's use of NUMBERS of people as a force, which I would agree is correct. But what is the alternative of 'force'...

"Consent of the governed."

Force is for Socialists and other kinds of Fascists. Democracy holds that the people are competent to decide their own governance, and to hold the governors accountable.

Is it 'consent' if only the wealthy... [/quote]
That's not democracy. That's aristocracy.

China IS an example by contrast of a system that DOES demonstrate this as relatively sucessful.

It's only success came when it abandoned Socialist economics and went "Red Capitalist." That should tell you something.

... John Locke showed ...(t)he protection of personal property is a primary right.

"Personal property" is also protected in the socialist environment.

You don't know what Socialism is, if you think that.

Furthermore, IF you accept a right to rule...

I don't.

In MY context here you do[/quote]
But I still don't.

I clearly laid out how the concept of 'ownership' is artificial...

Locke showed that it's not.

...the capitalist believes in a 'right' to own BEYOND one's own person and their needs....

Wealth is created by labour, personal enterprise, personal risk, and ingenuity. Those are things the individual brings to the equation. Government, by contrast, produces no wealth.

Everybody has a right to be responsible to own and dispense whatever they have morally earned. Nobody has a right to a "free lunch," or to taking the fruits of other peoples' labour away by force...which is what Socialism entails.

[Immanuel Can]

...what you're denegrating IS NOT SOCIALISM! It's Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Cheism, post-Chavezism etc. As long as you keep ignoring that, you have nothing to say about "socialism".

I disagree. But let's test that.

I notice that you can't give me even one example of the "good" Socialism you claim to advocate. But let's let you imagine it, even though it has never existed.

Tell me, what would YOUR version of Socialism do, so as to make the abuses of the past impossible?

Second, nearly every well-working family in the universe is primarily socialist.

Hogwash.

A family is more like a kind of "pseudo-monarchy," with a king and queen. The children have few and diminished rights, until the time set for them by the adults. They cannot drink, get tattoos, drive cars, and otherwise do as they please, until they are allowed by the adults.

Third, socialism is an ideology that does not imply method.

That's incorrect. Socialism is an economic model with a definite set of methods, such as forcible wealth redistribution, government ownership of all industry and services, and a "managed" economy. And it always turns out to be a disaster, as well.

In order to understand it you have to break it down to what it Always is, and that's a concern for equality of concern for all people's problems.

George Orwell saw through this deception. He was an ardent Leftist, early in his life. But he saw where it all went, and he saw what Socialism did, and that's why he criticized it so thoroughly. He saw it from the inside, and saw how utterly rotten it was.

I have to say that I find it quite astonishing that you're imagining that if we give power to the government, it's going to love us all, and love us all equally, and do right by us. I wonder how you think human nature is suddenly going to be made good by giving it more power through centralized government. And I wonder what kind of person you imagine is going to run the show when you're done taking away everybody's freedom.

[Immanuel Can]

I have no "bias" against Socialism, Scott...I just know what Socialism has invariably done. So do you, if you know either history or political philosophy at all.

If you suppose otherwise, just name a place where it's worked. (*sound of crickets*)

The BBC and NHS.

England is not Socialist. At least, thank God, not yet. Only the Capitalist elements of that economy will keep it afloat.

Both the BBC and the NHS are collapsing of economic unsustainability. There's an active public dialogue right now about what's to be done when they're gone...or, in the case of the BBC, whether forcing people to pay a license for a thing they don't want is even moral.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=503900 time=1616536062 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503872 time=1616529347 user_id=15238]
...what you're denegrating IS NOT SOCIALISM! It's Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Cheism, post-Chavezism etc. As long as you keep ignoring that, you have nothing to say about "socialism". [/quote]
I disagree. But let's test that.

I notice that you can't give me even one example of the "good" Socialism you claim to advocate. But let's let you imagine it, even though it has never existed.

Tell me, what would YOUR version of Socialism do, so as to make the abuses of the past impossible?

[quote]Second, nearly every well-working family in the universe is primarily socialist.[/quote]
Hogwash. :lol:

A family is more like a kind of "pseudo-monarchy," with a king and queen. The children have few and diminished rights, until the time set for them by the adults. They cannot drink, get tattoos, drive cars, and otherwise do as they please, until they are allowed by the adults.

[quote]Third, socialism is an ideology that does not imply method.[/quote]
That's incorrect. Socialism is an economic model with a definite set of methods, such as forcible wealth redistribution, government ownership of all industry and services, and a "managed" economy. And it always turns out to be a disaster, as well.

[quote]In order to understand it you have to break it down to what it Always is, and that's a concern for equality of concern for all people's problems.[/quote]
George Orwell saw through this deception. He was an ardent Leftist, early in his life. But he saw where it all went, and he saw what Socialism did, and that's why he criticized it so thoroughly. He saw it from the inside, and saw how utterly rotten it was.

I have to say that I find it quite astonishing that you're imagining that if we give power to the government, it's going to love us all, and love us all equally, and do right by us. I wonder how you think human nature is suddenly going to be made good by giving it more power through centralized government. And I wonder what kind of person you imagine is going to run the show when you're done taking away everybody's freedom.
[/quote]

You never made it past the first point.

[tillingborn]

Both the BBC and the NHS are collapsing of economic unsustainability. There's an active public dialogue right now about what's to be done when they're gone...or, in the case of the BBC, whether forcing people to pay a license for a thing they don't want is even moral.

That simply isn't true. The debate is whether we as a society want to pay for good quality television uninterrupted by advertising, and guaranteed healthcare for everybody who finds themselves in need on our island. There certainly are capitalists who are frustrated that they can't make money from people who wish to be entertained and educated without being sold something, and anyone who becomes ill or injured. They are the same people who shout that limits on their freedom to do so are limits on everybody's freedom, but it is still the majority of us who choose to contribute to society in ways that we believe improve everyone's experience. We like a bit of socialism and watching the BBC or contributing to others people's well being does not make us all murderous despots.

[Advocate]

[quote=tillingborn post_id=504008 time=1616591682 user_id=7001]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=503902 time=1616536247 user_id=9431]Both the BBC and the NHS are collapsing of economic unsustainability. There's an active public dialogue right now about what's to be done when they're gone...or, in the case of the BBC, whether forcing people to pay a license for a thing they don't want is even moral.[/quote]That simply isn't true. The debate is whether we as a society [i]want[/i] to pay for good quality television uninterrupted by advertising, and guaranteed healthcare for everybody who finds themselves in need on our island. There certainly are capitalists who are frustrated that they can't make money from people who wish to be entertained and educated without being sold something, and anyone who becomes ill or injured. They are the same people who shout that limits on their freedom to do so are limits on everybody's freedom, but it is still the majority of us who choose to contribute to society in ways that we believe improve everyone's experience. We like a bit of socialism and watching the BBC or contributing to others people's well being does not make us all murderous despots.
[/quote]

Neither does using taxes for things that aren't of immediate and obvious benefit to each individual taxpayer. Society is all about general goods and business, and now government, is all about privitizing those goods as quickly as possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Both the BBC and the NHS are collapsing of economic unsustainability. There's an active public dialogue right now about what's to be done when they're gone...or, in the case of the BBC, whether forcing people to pay a license for a thing they don't want is even moral.

That simply isn't true.

Yeah, it is. You've got to wonder why the government would have to force people to pay for something, through a license, when, according to you, they want it anyway. Why not just wave the regulation, and let the people pay what they want...pay MORE even, through private donation if they think the BBC is serving them well and is what they want to watch?

But you know better. The "Beebs" would be dead in a year if it had to depend on actually providing what the public wants to buy.

[Immanuel Can]

now government, is all about privitizing those goods as quickly as possible.

Heh. The government isn't "privatizing" anything.

Business, when it's making money, always starts out already "private," as the product of some individual's ingenuity and effort; and the only way the government can ever do any "privatizing" is if they've already taken over something that was legitimately private, and then made it a function of government, and then "privatized" it again.

Such "re-privatizing" is hardly to be regretted. There are plenty of industries and serviced with which government ought never to have been involved in the first place, because it financially kills anything it tries to run.

Broadcasting is one of them. That's none of the government's business, and people do not voluntarily subsidize the government's propaganda machines. The job of broadcasting ought to be providing entertainment to the public (so as to be self-sustaining and profit generating, not a public burden), holding the government to account in its news reportage, and disseminating useful information to the public through news coverage. Government should be obligated to keep its grubby hands off all of that.

[tillingborn]

Yeah, it is. You've got to wonder why the government would have to force people to pay for something, through a license, when, according to you, they want it anyway.

No it isn't. The current conservative government would sell the BBC and the NHS to the highest bidders in an instant were it not for the fact that more people want the status quo, which ironically is the nature of conservatism, than want any alternative. It's the tyranny of democracy, another irony.

But you know better. The "Beebs" would be dead in a year if it had to depend on actually providing what the public wants to buy.

I know because I live in the UK and am part of the conversation. Do you have any data on which base this claim? I ask because any fool can say any nonsense they wish, if they don't have to support it with evidence.

[tillingborn]

Business, when it's making money, always starts out already "private,"

Is there nothing in your view that should be publicly funded? Should defence be private? International relations? Law enforcement? Infrastructure? Natural resources? Does society have any rôle in your utopia?

[Skepdick]

Is there nothing in your view that should be publicly funded? Should defence be private? International relations? Law enforcement? Infrastructure? Natural resources? Does society have any rôle in your utopia?

Society isn't the system. Society is the people who build the system to meet their own needs.

In utopia you wouldn't need law enforcement, schools or doctors, so why pay for them?