Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

Click.

Oh, yes...I forgot this weird habit of yours. You're the only one who does it. Like "dasein," you think "click" means something specific. Nobody else thinks it does. And nobody else does it. And you don't notice.

Well, I've said what I think. You asked, I answered. And I really don't have any hope that a further conversation with you is likely to produce any light. So as I said...of you go, and do what you do.

[anthonypaulrobinson]

Socialism - is just another word for anger.

[Belinda]

I quite agree. The Socialists are just dead wrong about that.

Really? And where has a Socialist regime ever done that? China? Russia? North Korea? Cambodia? Romania? Albania? Congo? Zimbabwe? Cuba, Venezuela?...You'll look in vain for that to turn out to be true.

What you need to do, B., is be less impressed with people who talk a good game, and more impressed with those who actually do good.

Taking the President to task is hardly talking a good game!

Dividing the world into victims and oppressors, and seizing the one chance of positioning yourself before the cameras as the champion of the oppressed is a game for narcissistic children, not adult theologians. And when the group you're championing is actually made up of criminals, drug-runners, kidnappers, gang bangers and other victimizers of the American people, you can be quite sure the speaker is far more interested in posing herself as virtuous than she is in doing good to other people.

To tolerate evil without declaring evil to be evil is in itself evil.An adult theologian may be one of the ones who declares evil to be evil and who outfaces the devil in his own territory. I hope I have the requisite courage should the occasion arise to point my finger at wrong doing.

[Will Bouwman]

Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist (associated with the Frankfurt School, if you recognize that) and a staunch critic of Fascism, writing in 1941 gave the following analysis:

If you are going to cite, it would be helpful if you could provide references so that we can get the context. Given that Friedrich Pollock was a "staunch critic of Fascism, what you cite looks to me like a staunch criticism of Fascism.
The Nazi party were Fascists. Two words that are contradictory are Fascism and Socialism. They are contradictory in the way that social and democracy are not. It would be undemocratic to deny people the opportunity to vote for socialist policies. That is precisely what the Nazis did.
Their rise to power was in part triggered by the Wall Street crash, the clearest indication of the risks associated with unregulated markets. The Soviet Union was relatively unaffected, making socialism look like a better alternative to many, and anything with the label attached more appealing. The Nazis called themselves Socialist, but they were Fascists and your revisionist history is laughably ill iinformed. So is insisting that a party is what it is because of its name, that is to assume politicians are honest.

[Immanuel Can]

To tolerate evil without declaring evil to be evil is in itself evil.

I agree. So at what part in her weepy, narcissistic exhibition, did Budde Lite declare any sympathy for the family of people like Laken Riley, the young woman savagely murdered by one of those "refugees" Biden let in?

She didn't. She didn't call evil "evil." And so she was being evil.

[Immanuel Can]

Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist (associated with the Frankfurt School, if you recognize that) and a staunch critic of Fascism, writing in 1941 gave the following analysis:

If you are going to cite, it would be helpful if you could provide references so that we can get the context. Given that Friedrich Pollock was a "staunch critic of Fascism, what you cite looks to me like a staunch criticism of Fascism.

He was trying to criticize Fascism, alright: but even he had to admit the truth you deny.

The Nazi party were Fascists. Two words that are contradictory are Fascism and Socialism.

If you watched any of the video, you'd know just how wrong you are. But you didn't, obviously, so you don't.

But you should. It's a very nuanced and fair treatment by a specialist and author in the field.

[iambiguous]

Click.

Oh, yes...I forgot this weird habit of yours. You're the only one who does it. Like "dasein," you think "click" means something specific. Nobody else thinks it does. And nobody else does it. And you don't notice.

I've explained a number of times why I use it. It's just my way of acknowledging that mere mortals in a No God world do not seem able to pin down once and for all -- philosophically, scientifically -- if human brains have, in fact, "somehow" acquired the capacity to allow us to think, feel, intuit, say and do things of our own volition. I certainly don't know for sure myself so from time to time I include "click" in my posts to indicate that "I" am merely making the assumption that I am able to post with some measure of autonomy. Though, again, as some determinists suggest, even in doing this, I am embodying the only possible reality.

Well, I've said what I think. You asked, I answered. And I really don't have any hope that a further conversation with you is likely to produce any light. So as I said...of you go, and do what you do.

In my view -- click -- you allow yourself to believe this because it's better than acknowledging [even to yourself] why you resort to wiggling out of responding to many of the points I raise.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

For example:

As for Jesus speaking the truth, what actual historical and scientific proof is offered to us by Craig in those videos?

That's not the subject of all the videos. One day, you should watch them. Why not? You seem quite obsessed.

What are you talking about?! I have watched them. All 17 of them. Then I created a thread -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- to discuss them with you.

In fact, on page 2 after I reacted to all 17 videos, you posted this:

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes

That's it basically. And, on the contrary, I do not know the answer. In fact, even my very own conjectures here are no less rooted existentially in dasein, are no less fractured and fragmented.

[Immanuel Can]

Click.

Oh, yes...I forgot this weird habit of yours. You're the only one who does it. Like "dasein," you think "click" means something specific. Nobody else thinks it does. And nobody else does it. And you don't notice.

In my view -- click

[iambiguous]

Oh, yes...I forgot this weird habit of yours. You're the only one who does it. Like "dasein," you think "click" means something specific. Nobody else thinks it does. And nobody else does it. And you don't notice.

In my view -- click

No, seriously, what on Earth is this...

As for Jesus speaking the truth, what actual historical and scientific proof is offered to us by Craig in those videos?

That's not the subject of all the videos. One day, you should watch them. Why not? You seem quite obsessed.

What are you talking about?! I have watched them. All 17 of them. Then I created a thread -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- to discuss them with you.

In fact, on page 2 after I reacted to all 17 videos, you posted this:

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes

That's it basically. And, on the contrary, I do not know the answer. In fact, even my very own conjectures here are no less rooted existentially in dasein, are no less fractured and fragmented.

...all about?

What is it about those videos that now prompts you to avoid them like the plague? For weeks you challenge me to watch them and now you don't even recall that the thread encompassing my reaction to them even exists!!

[Will Bouwman]

Freidrich Pollock, himself an extremist Socialist (associated with the Frankfurt School, if you recognize that) and a staunch critic of Fascism, writing in 1941 gave the following analysis:

If you are going to cite, it would be helpful if you could provide references so that we can get the context. Given that Friedrich Pollock was a "staunch critic of Fascism, what you cite looks to me like a staunch criticism of Fascism.

He was trying to criticize Fascism, alright: but even he had to admit the truth you deny.

Just because someone says something you interpret as a point you agree with doesn't make it "the truth".

The Nazi party were Fascists. Two words that are contradictory are Fascism and Socialism.

If you watched any of the video, you'd know just how wrong you are. But you didn't, obviously, so you don't.

But you should. It's a very nuanced and fair treatment by a specialist and author in the field.

Well, if you are going to cite videos, it would be helpful if you could pick out the parts, either by quoting or giving time references, ideally both, that you believe support your argument. Just asserting that somewhere, some guy says so, therefore it is true is an appeal to authority. It's another fallacy that shows the weakness of your philosophical skills.
Here's how you do it. First of all, a bit of background research for some context. Who is Rainer Zitelmann, and what platform is he speaking from? Wikipedia, not authoritative, but a first point of entry says this: "Zitelmann pursued a career in conservative print media." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainer_Zitelmann
Then there's the platform, a pod cast called "Dad saves America" hosted by "Proud papa, filmmaker, entrepreneur, and arm-chair philosopher John Papola". His latest pod cast, 24 Jan, is an interview: "Katharine Birbalsingh Is Leading the Charge Against Woke Schooling" https://www.dadsavesamerica.com/p/katha ... is-leading
Katharine Birbalsingh is the headmistress of a school which Wikipedia describes thus:

"The school emphasises discipline and has a traditional style of teaching. There is a "zero tolerance" policy regarding poor behaviour. A "boot camp" week at the start of the year teaches the new year 7 pupils the rules and the consequences of breaking them. There is a strict uniform code and no group work. Children sit in rows and learn by rote and walk in single file between classrooms. Staff at the school "tend to reject most of the accepted wisdoms of the 21st century." Pupils must be silent in school corridors and are forbidden to gather in groups larger than four. The school policies have been described as "neo-strict" because it combines the use of punishments with rewards; "merit points" are given for good behaviour and achievement." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaela_Community_School

None of which has any bearing on the strength of Zitelmann's argument, but it helps to have some idea of where he is coming from.

According to Wikipedia:
"As a historian, Zitelmann is best known for his argument that Nazi Germany followed a conscious strategy of modernization. In his doctoral thesis, Zitelmann strove to show that the modernising efforts of the Third Reich, which had been diagnosed by scholars like Ralf Dahrendorf, David Schoenbaum and Henry Ashby Turner, were intended as such. Unlike Dahrendorf, Schoenbaum and Turner, who argued that the modernisation of German society during the Nazi period was an unintentional side effect or merely a necessary adjunct towards achieving profoundly antimodern goals, Zitelmann argued that modernization of German society was intended and a central goal of the Nazis."

So clearly Zitelmann has an interest in and particular view about Nazi Germany, but again, that it is someone's view doesn't make it "the truth".

Anyway, on to the video in question. From 6.48 Zitelmann explains how he perceives the difference between a free market economy, and a planned economy. He gives the example of the current German government legislating to outlaw the registration of combustion engined cars from 2035. His point being that in a free market, private companies decide what to produce, and whether they stand or fall depends on consumer choice. That the current German government has limited the economic viability for combustion engined cars in Germany post 2035 is what Zitelmann calls at 8.14 "The modern form of socialism" It is this "modern form of socialism" that Zitelmann attributes to the Nazis. The difference is that there are opportunities, between now and 2035, for the German electorate to democratically choose a government that will not impose the ban. This 'modern socialism' operates in a democratic framework and is a very different beast to the one you describe here:

But the words "Socialist" and "democrat" simply contradict each other. No such thing is even possible. To be a "democrat" one cannot seize all the means of production (which Socialism demands you do), and cannot allow rival political parties (which Socialism makes absolutely indispensible)...

You are using an example of 'socialism' that you don't believe is socialism, to prove that Hitler was a socialist. That is something an idiot might do. If you think Zitelmann makes a point that actually supports your case, quote that point and explain its relevance.

[Immanuel Can]

In my view -- click

No, seriously...

click...dasein.

[Immanuel Can]

If you are going to cite, it would be helpful if you could provide references so that we can get the context. Given that Friedrich Pollock was a "staunch critic of Fascism, what you cite looks to me like a staunch criticism of Fascism.

He was trying to criticize Fascism, alright: but even he had to admit the truth you deny.

Just because someone says something you interpret as a point you agree with doesn't make it "the truth".

No, even a PhD doesn't make somebody automatically right. But he is right about National Socialism.

The Nazi party were Fascists. Two words that are contradictory are Fascism and Socialism.

If you watched any of the video, you'd know just how wrong you are. But you didn't, obviously, so you don't.

But you should. It's a very nuanced and fair treatment by a specialist and author in the field.

Well, if you are going to cite videos, it would be helpful if you could pick out the parts, either by quoting or giving time references, ideally both, that you believe support your argument.

I'm sorry...does your mother still chew your food for you?

I thought is was rather a compliment to assume you had the wherewithal to process your own view from the material. But you see it as an insult or a defect of some kind, that I treat you as capable?

You are using an example of 'socialism' that you don't believe is socialism, to prove that Hitler was a socialist.

Not at all. Hitler was a Socialist, alright. He called himself one, and he effectively nationalized all the industries. The thing that fools people is that he left some industries alone, so long as they either a) already produced what he wanted, and b) didn't produce anything he didn't want. The net effect was total nationalization, even while retaining a "tame" element of free markets.

But Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Mao was worse than either, if numbers of dead are counted. And both Stalin and Mao were clearly Socialists, and without the deceptive "taming" of capital for their own uses. They went the whole Socialist route...and look where it took them. So you have Hitler, the National Socialist, and Stalin and Mao, the international Socialists...and you have nobody comparable on the "Capitalist" side to any one of them, let alone all three put together, plus their deranged Socialist brethren in places like Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba...

[mickthinks]

If you watched any of the video, you'd know just how wrong you are. But you didn't, obviously, so you don't.

But you should. It's a very nuanced and fair treatment by a specialist and author in the field.

Well, if you are going to cite videos, it would be helpful if you could pick out the parts, either by quoting or giving time references, ideally both, that you believe support your argument.

I'm sorry...does your mother still chew your food for you?

I thought is was rather a compliment to assume you had the wherewithal to process your own view from the material. But you see it as an insult or a defect of some kind, that I treat you as capable?

It was a reasonable request for Will to make. Manny seems either unable or too cussed to comply. Either way, his failure cannot be passed off as a compliment to Will.

It requires both arrogance and dishonesty of staggering proportions to adopt that tactic. Yet again Manny demonstrates why he doesn’t belong here, or in any other civilised discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you are going to cite videos, it would be helpful if you could pick out the parts, either by quoting or giving time references, ideally both, that you believe support your argument.

I'm sorry...does your mother still chew your food for you?

I thought is was rather a compliment to assume you had the wherewithal to process your own view from the material. But you see it as an insult or a defect of some kind, that I treat you as capable?

It was a reasonable request for Will to make.

Did you watch the video? It was pretty hard to mistake the argument...and I had the impression that Will was competent to make his own assessment, and to arrive at the obvious conclusion.

I still think Will is capable of it. You may not think he can, but I retain that faith.

[Immanuel Can]

Wow.

The Socialists just did it again.

In a private collaboration with the highly corrupt Conservative party in England, they conspired to shut down a whole series of county elections, denying millions of people in Britain the chance to vote. This seems to be a product of fear of the popularity of Farage's Reform Party, which is targeted by the suspension of normal electoral procedures in ridings in which Reform is showing particularly well.

Did I not point out that Socialists CANNOT suffer there to be any rival party or different agenda on offer to the public? That sooner or later, they must subvert democracy itself? Where now is this vaunted "democratic Socialism"? Not very "democratic," is it?