the limits of fascism

[Scott Mayers]

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.

What is this 'Davos' conspiracy? Is this something you got from QAnon? You already dissed those wealthy who support the 'socialist' ideals who DO give their money away. I'm guessing you malign them all as having some devious attempt to 'capitalize' by fraudulently appearing to favor the poor? I thought you were attempting to argue that 'compassion' is NOT the act of serving the masses, especially those greedy starving poor that is most inclusive of that class?

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?

What is your definition of 'wealth'?

So what should we 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

If the world is RUN by wealth (fact), what does it mean for them to assert whatever good in the world is working well if there is STILL poverty in the world (without a need to 'project'? Your link likely doesn't support anything of meaning to what you presume without complaints by the impoverished. Trying to squash skepticism about the virtue of wealth should have proven its virtue a long time ago. Why would poorer people complain if they had most wealthy people so generous as you presume. You cannot have extreme prosperity without more extreme failures.

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[/quote]
First off, I, not Marx, is speaking here. Don't pass off to another authority what I can argue for myself.

You lack an intellectual (or dishonesty) regarding the PHYSICS of all reality: Conservation of Energy!

All people are just extensions of the matter and energy that Nature supplies 'free' of our SPECIAL desires. Now, given you are religious, you may think that the electrons, protons, and neutrons of SOME people have a magical power to harness the control of other matter and energy by some quintessential God-particle you think of as 'ownership'. But the only real thing that any matter can maintain of other matter is by the normal consistent forces of nature that do not admit of WILL of some part of it to secure control of another without some other FORCE of EQUAL kind. As such, you cannot get MORE out of any real EXCHANGE of energy that you can than what you give DIRECTLY.

The means of 'wealth' is thus an artificial mechanism that requires FORCE in order to gain it and then keep it beyond what is necessary to survive locally. All animals in nature cannot eat 'freely' without struggle prior to our artificial construct of civilization without LOCAL means of immediate force. A lion, for instance, 'owns' what it forcefully can kill and defend of its own literal physical strength.

The things that all Earthlings get 'free' are things like the air we breathe and the very land beneath our feet to support us. The sun gives much of the energy that we don't consume of chemicals that above helium are not 'recyclable' relative to billions of years of stellular creation of heavier elements, not to mention the complex chemical bonds that things like supernovas are required to create.

The ONLY means for ANY animal to have more than what they can simply pluck from a tree of their own effort freely where such fruit existsis to use their OWN muscle power to fight against all other animals to keep what they can for their next meal. The concept of 'energy' is WORK. While we have advanced by adding intellectual powers that enable us to create tools, the 'tools' too are forces. But given these too are 'ownable', anything beyond what one can directly invent of their own mind OWES allegiance to the collective debt of all those who came before them (inherited). Thus, wealth, as represented by any 'claims', is an ARTIFICIAL construct that represents ENERGY to which, if equal to each of our potential, is still limited to what energy we can put out.

Any amount of energy beyond the balanced limits of DIRECT efforts that one person has MORE of in contrast to another has to be TAKEN and SECURED by FORCE in some way that goes against conservation of energy.

All money creation begins with literal sources of energy of some sort. If it is not by direct physical labor or 'free' from the Earth equally to all, it is done by THEFT, DECEPTION, or means to FORCE keeping, such as by using physical structures (like walls or other infrastructure) and weapons, whether this be by individual physical strength, or collections of people's strengths, or by the TOOLS (such as weapons) that some may have the advantage to have where they simultaneously prevent others from having.

Money, representing wealth, is the DEBT or PROMISES to pay back what someone WITH EXCESS energy supplied by one of the prior means just mentioned. If everyone were able to be equally wealthy, there would be no energy imbalance and NO MONEY!

END OF LESSON ONE, Physics of Economics.

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

Not even remotely true.

Not even 'remotely'? So which part of what I said just above is essentially false. Then tell me how wealth exists otherwise. Do you have a secret money tree stowed away in your back yard from your 'god' that assures the barer must trade it for whatever value of energy god commands others are required to accept as payment? [Reminds me of 'Indulgences' of the Catholic Church prior to Protestors to its power (damn socialists!)]

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?

Besides the fact that "dictator" in the times of Marx was NOT the derogatory term (meaning 'speaker' or 'representative of' others), by your insistance of 'dictating' that "socialism is dictatorship", what TERM is permitted by you, Oh Lord, to describe systems by which one can distribute the imbalance of ENERGY supply of the Earth to its inhabitants? If you are against anything 'social', you are for a return to the jungle. But then you cannot possibly think that those 'dollar bills' that require TRUST should be respected regardless. If you respect the FORCE by which you believe is 'natural' to hold over others, then why NOT accept the FORCE OF THE MASSES as a type of intellectualy 'capitalizing' by them as though they were one CORPORATE body (remember, "corporation" means "made into a single body")?

You still lose.

If you actually wanted to be intellectual about this, you should be trying to argue how and why laissaize faire still works better for all. All you have is that it is better for SOME. It no longer has the same meaning. Funny though that China seems to be doing quite 'fair(e)" given their own respect of acting as an ideal capitalist corporation! Damn Socialist idiots!!??

[gaffo]

since communisism has failed, the standig is dem rep and fascism, the latter was showed to offer nothing 80 yrs ago - but if too many lack vision the old tired facsism may rule ovre/

it lcerly old and tired - almost as tiered as communism, so thre is alack of imagination - old tired vision vs another instead of a proper vision.

what else is new ;-/.


sad.


nothing about fascism nor communism inspire me - so i need to find a a way out if worse come to worse. (what nations will take ameircan regugees)

BTW CCarmach 2020-24-28-32-36-etc.........neighbors had a laugh over my yardsighns for Carmaco - still on my cars back bumper - had yard sing unilt jan 22 - i thught about takign them doan from front larn on nov 4th - but the asshole of america refused to ceonceeed so kept them up unil janualry 20th or so...........the remanindader are still on my car's bumber.



truck fromp/

[gaffo]

That doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, the government is a eunuch: it produces no babies at all, and has zero to do with how they get produced. Secondly, the government is a contingent, constructed, unnecessary entity...there were parents long before there was anything we could even remotely call "government," and those parents raised their children without any. But thirdly, this has zero to do with fascism or National Socialism, since that was a much, much later invention.

But maybe fourthly, to whom does this mysterious entity you call "government" (without further adjectives) owe to "prove" its 'legitimacy," and how is such a thing even done? Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.

So who's proving what to whom, and how?

The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.

current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun

nope sir, your ilist view in summation is that theer is no legit goverment. and all gov are from the means of force.

nop[e. that reject the idfeal from our constitution - that the gov is via the conent of the goverfned.


if you reject the iddeal of a gov one governing vi the concent of the govnernd - theny you reject Constitution - you reject 1776/etc - and refuse the concept of legityimate governance.......................


which reult in only one olternative - mob rule - might makes right - ignor eth Rule of LAw - count me out on tat philosphy siir.


your vision os pure death and nothing more that mine i mine - fuck the rule of law.

wqell fuck that !!!!!!!!!!!!!

sir.

ya im fucking drunk and too lazy to edit the above - you can figure it out.

i affirm a legit gov - whci is one that gov by concent - and say fuck your phioloshy of "get of my lawn" as to osmall and nihialistic -----but maybe i as a libarl libertyarian just have more ideal sna love my Constitution more th\an than you jaded one does................

or i'm just a "nut" rigth Henry? just a nut.

all proper perons just fixate on the 540 ft og ythier front lawens and nothing more.


---------

bring out the guns bubbs.

[tillingborn]

Capitalist countries are flush with alternatives, educational or vocational opportunities

Do you think every citizen of a capitalist country has the same opportunities?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=504468 time=1616853165 user_id=9431]Capitalist countries are flush with alternatives, educational or vocational opportunities [/quote]

Almost all of which are indoctrination , not education, especially when you don't have money anyway.

[Sculptor]

Almost all of which are indoctrination , not education, especially when you don't have money anyway.

Indeed. And they fail to teach how to learn and how to think concentrating on what to learn and what to think.

By this means society is maintained in the same mode; failing to unpack the endemic assumptions and the "unknown knowns". And all this learning fails to address or uncover the obvious because it all contributes to a prescribed way of mode of thinking.

They burst the manacles and wear the name of "freedom" engraved on a heavier chain!

[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.

What is this 'Davos' conspiracy?

Not a "conspiracy." It's a public fact. See https://www.weforum.org/events/the-davos-agenda-2021 Note that the current dictator of China is one of their charter members.

What is your definition of 'wealth'?

I didn't know you felt it was a contested term. It can be a bunch of things. Usually, it means money. But it can also be framed or expressed in other ways, such as popularity, opportunities, assets, power, so it's not quite that simple.

What's your definition?

So what should we 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

If the world is RUN by wealth (fact), what does it mean for them to assert whatever good in the world is working well if there is STILL poverty in the world (without a need to 'project'?

I can't understand this question. Can you say it another way?

All people are just extensions of the matter and energy...

If that's true, then none of us owes anyone anything.

A lion, for instance, 'owns' what it forcefully can kill and defend of its own literal physical strength.

Oh? You're a Social Darwinist now? Humans are just like lions? If so, killing the zebras isn't wrong. It's just what lions do.

Better hope you're a lion.

THEFT, DECEPTION, or means to FORCE keeping,

None of which can be objectively wrong, if people are "just extensions of matter and energy." Matter and energy are never "wrong": they just do whatever they do.

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

Not even remotely true.

Not even 'remotely'?

Well, let's take an example. Bill Gates made his billions by inventing a machine that people freely buy, and love. (You're typing on one now, no doubt, so you're a voluntary supporter of Bill Gates's wealth.) Bill Gates employed thousands of people directly, and millions indirectly. His employees eat, have things, and are healthy, and have disposable income because of BG's invention. He didn't steal from anybody, and nobody got poor because he got rich. Every purchase of his computer was voluntary, and people love his invention. What's more, Bill Gates has also given abundantly to charity, including much work in the Developing World, through the Gates Foundation.

So now, what "promise," what "debt," does Bill Gates owe you?

If you actually wanted to be intellectual about this, you should be trying to argue how and why laissaize faire still works better for all.

And yet, I prefer to argue a point I believe in. You'll have to live with it.

[Immanuel Can]

Capitalist countries are flush with alternatives, educational or vocational opportunities

Do you think every citizen of a capitalist country has the same opportunities?

Well, there are no two people on earth who ever have "the same" opportunities. Opportunities are unique to people, because no two people inhabit exactly the same space and circumstances. So I'm not sure what your question really is.

Do you mean, "Do all citizens have comparable opportunities"? Again, no. Some are born in one place, to one set of parents, in one set of circumstances, and some are born in others. There is nothing that can be done about that, so you can't mean that, either.

Do you mean, "Do all citizens have a reasonable range of their own opportunities"? And I would say that in the West, people have way more opportunities than people have in the Developing World. But they have a marked tendency not to take all their opportunities, and to spend a lot of time complaining about the opportunities they see others having, instead of seizing their own.

I'd like to take every spoiled, teenage kid from the First World, and bring them to meet some of the folks I've met in the Developing World. Sometimes I've had the chance to do that, and they always say exactly the same thing: "I'm never going to be the same again; I can't look at the world the way I did before."

For the first time in their lives, they realize that they have been awash in advantages, all the while complaining that they weren't getting enough. When they see the real poor of the world, it changes everything they thought they knew about the opportunities they have been taking for granted. The tend to become much better people after that...more grateful, less greedy and resentful, and far more charitable.

So my point is that before we bellyache that the guy down the street has a swimming pool and we don't, we ought to take a thought for the person who never knows from day to day how she's going to feed her three children, and look up to the heavens, and thank God we are all so rich as we, in fact, are. Then we ought to stop whining, and get thinking about how to share our blessings with those who really haven't got opportunities.

Opportunities are everywhere, in the capitalist countries. But some of us are just too envious, lazy and ungrateful to seize them. In Developing Countries, or those under tyrannical rule, that's where people actually can be said not to have opportunities.

Fair enough?

[tillingborn]

So my point is that before we bellyache that the guy down the street has a swimming pool and we don't, we ought to take a thought for the person who never knows from day to day how she's going to feed her three children, and look up to the heavens, and thank God we are all so rich as we, in fact, are. Then we ought to stop whining, and get thinking about how to share our blessings with those who really haven't got opportunities.

Opportunities are everywhere, in the capitalist countries. But some of us are just too envious, lazy and ungrateful to seize them. In Developing Countries, or those under tyrannical rule, that's where people actually can be said not to have opportunities.

Fair enough?

I think you and I have met different people. Having worked in mental health and education I know there is more to poverty than envy, laziness and ingratitude. Nor has it ever been my inclination to thank God that there are people worse off than myself. I'm sure you don't mean to, but you come across as a misanthropic Christian apologist. Do you have any compassion for people who do not thrive in the capitalist countries they happen to live in?

[Advocate]

[quote=tillingborn post_id=504762 time=1617021860 user_id=7001]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=504689 time=1616953118 user_id=9431]So my point is that before we bellyache that the guy down the street has a swimming pool and we don't, we ought to take a thought for the person who never knows from day to day how she's going to feed her three children, and look up to the heavens, and thank God we are all so rich as we, in fact, are. Then we ought to stop whining, and get thinking about how to share our blessings with those who [i]really [/i]haven't got opportunities.

Opportunities are everywhere, in the capitalist countries. But some of us are just too envious, lazy and ungrateful to seize them. In Developing Countries, or those under tyrannical rule, [i]that's [/i]where people actually can be said not to have opportunities.

Fair enough?[/quote]I think you and I have met different people. Having worked in mental health and education I know there is more to poverty than envy, laziness and ingratitude. Nor has it ever been my inclination to thank God that there are people worse off than myself. I'm sure you don't mean to, but you come across as a misanthropic Christian apologist. Do you have any compassion for people who do not thrive in the capitalist countries they happen to live in?
[/quote]

Capitalists have no compassion. They believe that the system is mostly fair and therefore most people who don't get by are mostly because of their own fault. It's insane.

[Immanuel Can]

Nor has it ever been my inclination to thank God that there are people worse off than myself.

False twist. Caught red-handed.

I wrote: "So my point is that before we bellyache that the guy down the street has a swimming pool and we don't, we ought to take a thought for the person who never knows from day to day how she's going to feed her three children, and look up to the heavens, and thank God we are all so rich as we, in fact, are. Then we ought to stop whining, and get thinking about how to share our blessings with those who really haven't got opportunities."

This, you want me to believe you actually read this as glee at other's suffering? And you think you're going to prompt some sort of "shame" reaction by so grossly misrepresenting what I said?

I don't know which is greater: the insult to my intelligence or the insult to your reading ability.

I think you and I have met different people.

I'm feeling quite certain you're right. It would seem that I've actually met the Developing World poor, and I'm certain you haven't. But I know the kinds of Developed World poor you know, too...and I can tell you they're a very different constituency. You'll have to take my word for that...or likely, do what you usually do, which is twist it and see if you can stick with it.

Not gonna play, Chuckles.

[Immanuel Can]

Capitalists have no compassion.

Funny. Socialism has spread misery and oppression across the world. Capitalism, meanwhile, has been defeating world poverty. And you say it's the Capitalists who are the bad people?

I'll stack up my microenterprise charities against your Stalins and Maos any day. Let's see where "compassion' really comes from.

[tillingborn]

This, you want me to believe you actually read this as glee at other's suffering? And you think you're going to prompt some sort of "shame" reaction by so grossly misrepresenting what I said?

Do you not thank God that you have more than others?

It would seem that I've actually met the Developing World poor, and I'm certain you haven't. But I know the kinds of Developed World poor you know, too...and I can tell you they're a very different constituency.

Not meaning to twist anything, that to me implies that you think the poor in Developing World are deserving, while the Developed World poor have only themselves to blame. How else am I meant to interpret that?

[Advocate]

>Funny. Socialism has spread misery and oppression across the world.

Nope

>Capitalism, meanwhile, has been defeating world poverty.

Nope.

>And you say it's the Capitalists who are the bad people?

Nope. Only the non-ignorant ones.

>I'll stack up my microenterprise charities against your Stalins and Maos any day. :D

I don't have any Stalins or Maos and neither does socialism. Your definition of socialism has always been inadequate for any purpose and you've never tried to improve it. You're dying on a hill of your own imagination.

>Let's see where "compassion' really comes from.

It's basically the opposite of the profit motive which says "take as much as possible and then decide based on completely arbitrary personal criteria whether and how to give any back". There's no compassion possible in capitalism or it couldn't produce profit in the first place. Profit is inherently unfair.

[Skepdick]

>Funny. Socialism has spread misery and oppression across the world.

Nope

The kind of socialism he's talking about has.
The kind of socialism he's talking about hasn't.

>Capitalism, meanwhile, has been defeating world poverty.

Nope.

The kind of capitalism he's talking about has.
The kind of capitalism you are talking about hasn't.

But y'all go ahead and talk right past each other now...