the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

How would you explain capitalism to someone who doesn't know what it means?

It's actually extremely easy, and has been working successfully all over the world. Instead of sending wads of money to Socialist dictators, and seeing it disappear into their bank accounts, you send aid workers to the poor themselves, ask them what they want, and then help them to get it, training them in the rudimentary principles that make for business success...quality, customer service, basic accounting practices, borrowing and repaying...and so on.

That's exactly the sort of practise I would hope to see, but where does the aid come from, and who decides how to distribute it?

Ironically, the vast majority of it comes from corporations and foundations run by Capitalist enterprise, although private donations are also part of the equation. It's distributed by charities on-the-ground, directly to the individual "partners," meaning the entrepreneurial poor themselves. Governments never get to touch the money.

Do you think we should trust people who have no motivation other profit?

They don't. You'll find that corporations and businesses are often very charitable with their profits. Many corporations have charitable foundations, in fact, that give away millions. Microenterprise would struggle on the small amounts that private persons are able to donate; but with corporate donations, they have literally been able to turn the tide against poverty. And they've made a huge difference to government aid, as well; because governments are often really bad at getting money to where it's needed, and targeting the sources of poverty. But microenterprise is great at doing that.

Success speaks for itself. As you can see, world poverty was taking a real beating; and it could be eliminated by mid-century, if we kept up with things like microenterprise.

Here: look for yourself. https://www.opportunity.org.uk

[tillingborn]

So my question to you is what do you think we should do about it?

Answer: we started doing it, until COVID and the Leftists stopped us, just a year ago. We were exporting Capitalism, in various ground-level forms like microenterprise, to the Developing World at an astonishing rate, and thereby doing the unthinkable: actually eliminating world poverty.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019 ... 86x550.png

Getting rid of poverty is a fine objective, but if you are claiming that the graph demonstrates that what you propose is working, why is it having no impact in sub-Saharan Africa? And why is poverty stubbornly high even in capitalist countries?

[Skepdick]

What is the point of you asking?

Ditto.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=504387 time=1616776497 user_id=9431]
eliminating world poverty.
[/quote]

You misspelled "rape the planet which happens to have some minor temporary trickle-down effects which are vastly less than the damage done that the future will have to pay for"

Every time a capitalist says anything about poverty they're lying. Those people could have done much better Without capitalism. They could have lived more happily without super bowls and fake reality television. And they could have gotten most of the important technology just fine without capitalism if capitalists weren't stealing all the money.

[Immanuel Can]

...why is it having no impact in sub-Saharan Africa?

The first and largest microenterprise programs were started in Asia. Africa is late to the game. But it also has some additional problems the others don't have, such as a tyrannical view of women (who are the main agents of change in this kind of program), and most pressingly, a set of extremely corrupt governments that keep the countries unstable. The African flirtation with Marxism, in particular, has been a disaster, but Islam is still a hugely repressive force, even south of the Sahara. Still, things are changing now, especially in countries like Uganda, Rwanda and Ghana, where an even relatively stable situation makes it possible for microenterprise to take hold.

What's clear is that the technique works, and works spectacularly, if you just have a marginally-stable political environment. Business needs some degree of predictability, a reliable supply-and-demand chain, a decent currency, and so forth; but things don't have to be anywhere close to perfect, as microenterprise is showing in Asia and South America.

And why is poverty stubbornly high even in capitalist countries?

You'll find that what "poverty" is, is very different in capitalist countries.

Capitalist countries are flush with alternatives, educational or vocational opportunities and social safety measures, but they are not always taken. there, poverty is much more highly indexed to things like substance abuse, mental illness, single parenthood, and other such social pathologies, because basically the people are rich, by world standards. But they're also comparatively spoiled. Very often, the problem in the West is not the lack of opportunity, but the refusal of persons to take the available helps, or their preference for a self-damaging lifestyle.

In fact, if you live in the West, you are so privileged that you have only to do three things, and you're statistically practically guaranteed not to end up in poverty: 1. Don't get anybody pregnant or start any addictive substances 2. Finish secondary or high school. 3. Pick any job,-- any job at all -- and do it.

If you do these three things, the chances against you being in poverty are tiny; if you don't, they increase rapidly.

"Poverty" in a Developed World situation is a bar set much, much higher that in the Developing World. Here, people think they're in "poverty" when they still have steady access to food, shelter, and even medical care. There, "poverty" means good people who want to work and are not addicted or behaving badly don't have the opportunity to do anything with it, and live on perhaps less than a dollar a day.

[Immanuel Can]

Every time a capitalist says anything about poverty they're lying.

I can't tell you how totally wrong you are. I can see you're not listening, though. I know many extraordinarily charitable people who are wealthy. Sure, there are greedy ones you can point to. But that's human nature, and you're going to find it at every level. There are just as many greedy ones among the poor, it may surprise you to know. But you would be amazed how many there are who are outrageously generous with money they earned from their own ingenuity and hard labour.

Just for example, take a look at what the Gates Foundation has been giving away, worldwide. (45.5 Billion) And if I were being difficult, I'd ask how that compares to what you gave away last year...I won't.

Those people could have done much better Without capitalism.

Well, that should be easy to prove. Where do you want to point to: Cuba? Venezuela? Romania? Albania? North Korea? Show me where Socialism has made people better off. I can show you where capitalism has done it. It's even saved China, the dictatorial Socialist state, from financial disaster.

[henry quirk]

It's even saved China, the dictatorial Socialist state, from financial disaster.

Yep.

It's the way of things...

When commies implement elements of capitalism, things get better for them.

When capitalists implement elements of communism, things go south for them.

Even the current, crappy iteration of capitalism -- amoral state capitalism -- is better than the most noble socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

When capitalists implement elements of communism, things go south for them.

In some regards, yes. But to be fair, there's a limited possibility for socialized programs.

Socialized programs are undeniably economically inefficient. They don't create revenue...they expend it, and they draw on it, often very wastefully. But what seems to be the case is that some very limited socialized programs can be sustained by capitalism, because unlike Socialism, capitalism can produce the "surplus value" necessary to sustain at least a modest set of socialized programs.

So maybe welfare and pensions won't bankrupt the system: but welfare, pensions, guaranteed minimum income, reparations, universal health care, universal public schooling, universal employment insurance, open borders and funded integration, a high minimum wage, and so on, especially when put together, certainly will. Not even a capitalist system of the most fiscally ambitious kind can keep up the entire panoply of things Socialists want to think we're all entitled to.

Here's the irony: the presence of any socialized programs, their sustainability and their ongoing health, will depend on a country generating a lot of surplus value and capital through independent business initiatives. But taking all the capital to fund too many such programs will destroy the economic engine that powers the existing socialized programs. There's nothing to tax when nobody's making a profit, and no reason to run the risks and investments involved a business when all the profits will simply be confiscated.

So people who want socialized programs, even of a modest kind, should be very concerned to guarantee that capitalism remains vigorous.

But they're not.

That's where we seem to be right now.

[henry quirk]

what seems to be the case is that some very limited socialized programs can be sustained by capitalism, because unlike Socialism, capitalism can produce the "surplus value" necessary to sustain at least a modest set of socialized programs.

Yes: charities.

Free men with the wherewithal voluntarily givin' and doin' to help better others who need, and deserve, and ask for, help.

If the State demands and takes a dime, no matter how well-intended the use of that dime is, it's still theft.

And, the intentions of the State are never pure...by definition, the State's intentions always lead to coercion, are always coercive.

The State is a directive institution, not a compassionate one.

[Immanuel Can]

what seems to be the case is that some very limited socialized programs can be sustained by capitalism, because unlike Socialism, capitalism can produce the "surplus value" necessary to sustain at least a modest set of socialized programs.
Yes: charities.
Free men voluntarily givin' to help better others.

That's how it ought to be.

Socialism is full of paradoxes, and this is another one.

One the one hand, it's totally, stupidly credulous about human nature. Its assumption is that if all people are provided for equally, in all ways they care about, they'll all be industrious, happy, non-competitive, non-acquisitive, non-aggressive, inventive, healthy, caring, and otherwise perform as excellent utopian citizens. The "triumph of the proletariat" will be heaven on earth, because there's not one thing intrinsically wrong with human nature.

But on the other hand, it knows darn well that people will not be all the ideal things unless Socialism forces them to become them...they will not naturally become good. So it does not trust people to choose what is in their own best interests; it supposes they must be forced to align with the Socialist's conception of good. It regards human nature as utterly untrustworthy, therefore; it must be made, forced, driven to do what the Socialists want it to do, and be rigidly prevented from choosing anything else.

Socialists know that some free men will be charitable, and some will not. That, according to Socialism, is insufferable. So all men must be compelled -- not to become charitable, since charity presumes choice -- but to be forced cooperate with a non-charitable scheme, that of enabling the government to dispense benefits while nobody any longer has to be, or can be, charitable.

[henry quirk]

Bastiat, among others, knew...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456

[Impenitent]

-imp

[Advocate]

[attachment=0]shea-zellweger-a732dd9b-fcda-4c0c-b1b3-b6db6df3ca7-resize-750.jpg[/attachment]

Just as relevant but more interesting.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't really know why. They're not exemplars of Socialist economics. They're merely socialized elements totally dependent on a broadly Capitalistic system. As such, they make no argument for Socialist economics, because they're on life-support from Capitalism.

As I stated, the UK and all other west European nations are mixed economies. There are some things which a significant proportion of the electorate believe should not be left to uncontrolled capitalism.

An unimportant caveat. There's practically no person other than an outright Anarchist, who will say government has NO function. The question is rather whether Socialism can run an economy.

It can't. Even socialized programs depend for their existence on Capitalism. Thus, everybody who likes such programs ought to be in favour of Capitalism.

This answers the question regarding WHY there are SOME wealthy people who are socialists. If you have a household 'parent' who is totalitarian, given the parent is represented as the power of which can control the wealth, the ONLY possible ways for such a potential 'capitalist' to be overthrown is either by the mob of the children suffering or some other at least EQUALLY powerful person on par with that power. If all households were similarly run by the same standards, then it requires an even MORE unusual person with such unconventional power democratically-wise among all the wealth holders, to speak out.

The first thing noticeable of those with such compassion will be those who give away their wealth. Many who start out with advantages who have such compassion will aim for the means to gain enough wealth to overthrow it. It is either that or you'd have to expect those poor children of the wealthy totalitarian selfish parent to find some means to competitively overthrow them WITHOUT the tools that wealthier people use as weapons to hold them down.

100 people with sticks cannot compete with 1 person who owns a machine gun set high upon a turret of a castle wall able to mow them down with bullets within a few seconds.

We have to resist the lunatics at both extremes of the political spectrum.

Of course. But the Anarchists are no threat right now. Socialism, on the other hand, is rearing its ugly head yet again.

Of course 'social' -istic people tend to be 'socially' conscious enough NOT to expect they'd have to be on the lookout for the self-centered pretentious 'brave' Humpty Dumpty on the wall crying foul that his horsemen cannot put him together again: he hasn't paid them enough to get even get a degree for shell-repair certificates for their TAXi -ing jobs. It doesn't help either that the horsemen ARE also the ones protesting outside the wall along with the other slaves.

So my question to you is what do you think we should do about it?

Answer: we started doing it, until COVID and the Leftists stopped us, just a year ago. We were exporting Capitalism, in various ground-level forms like microenterprise, to the Developing World at an astonishing rate, and thereby doing the unthinkable: actually eliminating world poverty.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019 ... 86x550.png

You seem not able to balance the books: All wealth IS the collective worth of ALL the people's toils along with the 'free' raw resourses humanity can take from the Earth. The ones' who OWN property own that 'free' energy of the Earth denied to ALL the people equally (without socialism) and money other than those advantages are ONLY due to the DEBT of others. [You don't owe yourself debt because you are your 'own'. So all wealth is derived by debt 'promised' by all others plus that free wealth you get from the land that Nature 'owns' alone.]

Capitalism fails for the GREED of those who manage to monopolize and conserve their power successfully by first stealing more than their 'share', investing in large walls and guns powerful enough to hold off the masses, and then BLACKMAILING these masses to 'agree' to what is non-negotiable in principle. When was the last time you could go to a grocery store and negotiate for the price of a fixed-labeled product? Choosing to not buy something has no force if the collective 'owners' of the supply chain are able to cooperatively work among themselves to prevent successful newcomers from NOT acting in sync with each other's agreement for club membership to keep the means of trade FAIR among all people equally.

When Capitalism first started, it DID help many when or where no means of monopolizing existed. There are now fewer avenues for such fairness anywhere WITHOUT some means to police the very monopolizing powers that have successfully locked OUT the original means of actual free trade. Your ideal of government though, ELIMINATES such policing other than AGAINST those without. Your only ideal for government is absudly discrimnatory against all others by demanding the masses be TAXED to pay for your SECURITY IN WEALTH at the ignorant assumption that laws should not be made to LIMIT the means of ABUSES that occur there.

Given there are fewer people with wealth because you cannot have it without the burden of debt of those without, you think it alright for the fewer class of people with it to RULE over all others as though you think you are superior by nature. It leads to SEGREGATION because people tend to favor their own and pass on the benefits to their own. It thus leads to racist ideology as your own families tend to LOCK in the wealth with less and less ability to lose REGARDLESS. And since the population distribution of 'virtue' is equal among all people regardless, there is no means to assure there is no 'evil' among your wealth class, let alone no actual self-policing, that has INCENTIVE for you to invest in by contrast to outsiders.

Socialism IS necessary and CAN NEVER go away without fairness distributed equally to all people. The alternative is for you fucks to blow up the Earth rather than let it be shared like mass suicidal madmen who want to take it out on others if you cannot have it all here and now. And THAT is the reason for the social problems like wars and disease.

Your idea for laws that lack 'social' mechanisms for securing EACH person a minimal of rights is only a means to KEEP you and your own on top at the expense of TAXING all the rest with greed that counters your artificial declarations of religious superioriority. Why, if you are not sincerely so religious, do you not respect that your GOD would more likely reward you too more for VOLUNTEERING the SACRIFICE of all your wealth and power in the same way you attempt to con the poor to be slavishly timid and accepting of their fate for the same promise you attempt to sell them about being religious? You are a hypocrite.

[Immanuel Can]

The first thing noticeable of those with such compassion will be those who give away their wealth.

There are plenty who do. But I notice that the Davos Socialists aren't among them.

Many who start out with advantages who have such compassion will aim for the means to gain enough wealth to overthrow it. It is either that or you'd have to expect those poor children of the wealthy totalitarian selfish parent to find some means to competitively overthrow them WITHOUT the tools that wealthier people use as weapons to hold them down.

Wealthy people don't have to be "holding others down." That's not how life works. If somebody's a millionaire, that's really not my business. Maybe they earned it. Maybe I didn't have as good ideas as they have, or work as hard as they did, or take the risks they did...why should I be angry with them, if they got ahead?

It's not a zero sum game. Somebody else having success doesn't hurt me. In fact, it may help me, if they give me a job or give to charity. Why should I be mad at them?

So my question to you is what do you think we should do about it?

Answer: we started doing it, until COVID and the Leftists stopped us, just a year ago. We were exporting Capitalism, in various ground-level forms like microenterprise, to the Developing World at an astonishing rate, and thereby doing the unthinkable: actually eliminating world poverty.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019 ... 86x550.png

All wealth IS the collective worth of ALL the people's toils...

No, it's not. Marx was wrong about that. He was working from a very simplistic view of Industrial England, and didn't even get that right.

There is not a limited amount of wealth in the world, and wealth is not all "toil." Wealth represents a whole bunch of things: creativity, risk-taking, invention, entrepreneurship, labour, materials, investment... Marx had this dumb idea that everybody honest was some kind of labourer, and the value of goods was totally in the labour to produce them. It never was.

Here's an example of why Marx was so far off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYbambvmWMs

So all wealth is derived by debt 'promised' by all others

Not even remotely true.

Socialism IS necessary...

Socialism is dictatorship. Even Marx called it "the dictatorship of the proletariat," but even that isn't right. It's dictatorship of whichever dictator can use it so subdue, exploit and kill the most people. It's the dictatorship of Stalin, of Mao, of Pol Pot, of Kim Jong, of Ceacescu, of Mugabe, of Castro and Maduro, and the next madman to come along.

Every single time it's been tried in history, that's what it's been. So why would you campaign in favour of that?