Fascist Argument Against Capitalism [Archive]

Laughing Man

23rd July 2005, 05:44

In this article, Fascism is called wholism in a general term. Here it is.

"Capitalism, like democracy, is based on the "supply and demand" maxim. In arithmetical form, this would look like:

Z will happen/be produced when Y desires it out of necessity (see the notes section at the bottom of this essay).

This is generally true. Pornography was created because Y desired it. Expensive cars were created because Y desired them (and put enough money into it). The vaccine for small pox was created because Y desired it (and also put enough money into it). And even going to the moon was done because Y had a desire to do it, and mobilized the nation to do so.

However, what if Y does not desire Z, but Z would be eminently more beneficial to them than what Y desires now? Well, than Z (what is not desired, but extremely beneficial) will not occur. This is the very core of the problem.

The space program (Z) will only realize its full potential once Y desires it. Why would Y desire it? It could be because its "neat", to show superiority to other countries (such as China, although they are not advancing fast enough to cause this quite yet), or because of economic benefit.

However, as Carl Sagan said, "There does not seem to be sufficient short-term profit to motivate private industry. If we humans ever go to these worlds…it will be because…a nation or a consortium of them believes it to be to its advantage" (xvii). So because what Y desires may take decades and billions of dollars to achieve—sacrificing resources from X—Y does not desire a space program.

Environmental restoration (Z) does not get a high priority either, because Y is either too lazy to take their garbage to a recycling bin, because Y does not think he'll make a difference, or maybe because corporate Y does not want to lose all of their business by converting to an alternative fuel source. There could be many reasons. Y would rather spend the day doing something that "entertains" them, like watching sports or going out to an expensive restaurant in designer clothes, and eating fattening foods.

This free market idea does not solve the overpopulation problem either. Even though Y is poor, Y continues to have more children than they can afford (the poor have always had more children than the wealthy). While in the short term, this family consumes no more than they would consume if they were a three person family (although they will consume it quicker), when the eight children grow up, have a job and a family of their own, they will consume eight times (probably more) than what they did twenty to thirty years ago. Thus the environmental strain. Attempting to enforce a one- or two-child policy lost Indira Gandhi her election in 1977. Authoritarian China achieves this level of control in areas they have real control over (Beijing, province capitals, etc.), mainly because they have the might to enforce it, without the risk of losing power.

Switching to alternative fuel sources is not on Y's high priority list, unlike scoring a date that evening, or catching the season premiere of Joe Millionaire. Sure, Y believes it is a good idea, but is not really enthusiastic about it. So gas prices rise, and Middle Eastern nations hold more power over us than they ought to. Y does not demand that a switch is made. Thus, if a supply interruption occurred suddenly (or if the resources began to peter out, skyrocketing prices), Y would not be able to continue Y's life style. With alternative fuel sources, however, such is not the case. Yet Y still does not demand that a switch is made.

Also, the corporate Y's do not demand a switch over because their multi-billion dollar oil industry would come crashing down, resulting in a loss of profit and jobs for many. Although a vastly expanded alternative fuel industry could generate profit, the future corporate Y's (that would run a alternative fuel source company) do not have a say, as they do not exist, due to the present Y's selfishness.

Y does not demand that the budget deficit be rectified, mainly for two reasons—Y would have to pay higher taxes (recall Reagan's victory over Mondale's "we're going to tax their asses off" to pay for the debt), and Y just doesn't care, since Y does not get direct benefits from paying the debt.

Under wholism, the government will be able to skip the demand stage. This cannot be done under either capitalism or democracy.

Notes

Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot. New York: Random House, 1994. xvii.

X = Item or activity that create short-term pleasure, but are either detrimental or cause no effect on the long run

Y = An individual, a group of individuals, the American public, or a corporation

Z = Item or activity that provides long-term benefits, often at the cost of short-term pleasures"

Latifa

23rd July 2005, 06:13

Who do you think you are to suggest you should control supply with no concern for demand. This kind of scheme has been tryed and fucked up many a time before because frankly, supply and demand works better than fascist idealism.

A Free Mind

23rd July 2005, 06:21

I think what LM was trying st say was supply and demand would still function on a domestic level (you could buy your mars bars and cokes) but the goverment (under a strong and forward looking leader ect.) would act to solve future problems before a crisis occured insted od how it is now where prolbems are allowed to get bigger and bigger so that the companys can make their profits and joe average can sit on his couch and let some oneelse take the responsibility

23rd July 2005, 07:16

I agree with you on the fact that in the capitalist system many beneficial things aren't being realized because of the fact that it is in nobody's best interest to make them happen. However, instead of putting all trust in one man to solve this problem, why not put this into the hands of the people? Obviously once people are freed from the shackles of capitalism they will be able to realize what is beneficial for them through logic instead of profit. You don't put enough trust in the people.

Fascism cannot come directly from capitalism. Capitalism preaches greed. The leader, who would have been raised in a capitalist society, will have this trait and he will thirst for power. And he will do whatever he can to gain more power. I suggest you read 1984.

Seeker

23rd July 2005, 07:30

That sounds very similar to Stalinism without the Soviet economic system. Capitalism reigns supreme and the leader kisses the collective arse of Industry in a oligarchic orgie of profit's for the elite.

Why does that sound so familiar?

Publius

23rd July 2005, 12:39

However, what if Y does not desire Z, but Z would be eminently more beneficial to them than what Y desires now? Well, than Z (what is not desired, but extremely beneficial) will not occur. This is the very core of the problem.

There is not benefit if it is not desired.

There is no objective value.

The only value given to an object is what someone gives to it.

Z cannot be simultaniously be more beneficial and less desired. Beneficiality IS desirability.

IF the people want to buy stupid, petty, useless things, it's their right.

Publius

23rd July 2005, 12:41

And giving power to a government is the worst decisions you can possibly make.

If you want to take away my right to buy useless shit, I'll take away your right to vote for a dictator and murder the fucker.

Laughing Man

23rd July 2005, 15:27

A Free Mind interprited it right. Fascism cannot hope to remove supply and demand or the free market. Why, when these things have worked so well should they be removed? Regualted certainly, but not removed. Fascism is content with the macro, while Socialism demands the micro.

"I agree with you on the fact that in the capitalist system many beneficial things aren't being realized because of the fact that it is in nobody's best interest to make them happen. However, instead of putting all trust in one man to solve this problem, why not put this into the hands of the people? Obviously once people are freed from the shackles of capitalism they will be able to realize what is beneficial for them through logic instead of profit. You don't put enough trust in the people."

I agree, with Capitalism gone the people will certainly have more freedom of thought. But remember, mankind has spent millenia without Capitalism, and was just as ignorant in numbers then as he is now. This does not mean the majority is totaly useless in all situations, or that the minority is always so great. Both are usefull in some situations. To quote this Fascist maxim "The majority, simply because it is a majority, has no right to govern. A minority, simply because it is a minority, has no right to govern." Fascism is both against Democracy and Dictatorship, prefering leadership. A leader has no more or less power than what is required to the job set before him. A dictator has too much power or has gained power without earning it. Fascism wants a strong elite, which we feel is ultimatly superiour as a protection of the people then say, constitutions, which can and are violated. Personaly, I don't believe giving power to one man. It would to be too much to ask of that man to remain sane when given that much responsibility in a modern State. There's just too much to do. Instead, power should be spread according to the needs of occupational and cultural groups with representatives elected occupationaly. The majority may set the overall tone of government by electing the minority that actualy governs. I trust the people as much as you. What I don't trust is the mass.

"Fascism cannot come directly from capitalism. Capitalism preaches greed. The leader, who would have been raised in a capitalist society, will have this trait and he will thirst for power. And he will do whatever he can to gain more power. I suggest you read 1984."

I disagree with Orwel. I think the Soviet Union has shown us that people do indeed eventualy see through tyrrany. Hs mythic State's days would be numberd. And I must ask, havn't you been raised in Capitalist society? And yet hundreds of you flock to the red banner of selflessness. I flock to the black banner of selflessness, and I was raised in Capitalist society. Not that Capitalism could not spawn horrible dicators (as if it hasn't allready), but such men are not Fascist.

"There is not benefit if it is not desired."

That is a matter of opinion.

"There is no objective value."

I agree there, but that shouldn't stop you from valueing things.

"The only value given to an object is what someone gives to it."

Definetly true, but consider how much power to give value is possed by a wholist elite?

"Z cannot be simultaniously be more beneficial and less desired. Beneficiality IS desirability."

Only if you desire what you believe is beneficial, and that is true.

"IF the people want to buy stupid, petty, useless things, it's their right."

Only so if they have the might to keep others from stoping them.

"And giving power to a government is the worst decisions you can possibly make."

From the Fascist perspective, the official government should be the real government. The official government then needs more power than any other element that may attempt to repalce it, like finance, the money power and revolutionary movements. So long as the official government is the real government, it is an expression of the people's will.

"If you want to take away my right to buy useless shit, I'll take away your right to vote for a dictator and murder the fucker."

I'll join you. As I said, I don't like dicators.

23rd July 2005, 17:23

I agree, with Capitalism gone the people will certainly have more freedom of thought. But remember, mankind has spent millenia without Capitalism, and was just as ignorant in numbers then as he is now.

So you don't trust the people to make the correct decisions. That much is obvious. To say that mankind has been just as ignorant before capitalism as it will be after is completely denying the whole existence of the development of human thought. Have you ever studied philosophy? Do you realize that a LOT more people are atheist or nonreligious nowadays than back then because they used logic to figure out that it's stupid?

Fascism is both against Democracy and Dictatorship, prefering leadership.

A dictatorship is a dictatorship, even if it's with more than one leader. You can't hide that.

A leader has no more or less power than what is required to the job set before him. A dictator has too much power or has gained power without earning it.

The only difference is that you give power to you "leader" yet the dictator "takes power". (even though most people in history that were considered dictators were GIVEN their power).

Fascism wants a strong elite, which we feel is ultimatly superiour as a protection of the people then say, constitutions, which can and are violated.

So you believe that a strong elite, which isn't in writing and can change the laws and do whatever they want, is more protective than that of a constitution?

I disagree with Orwel. I think the Soviet Union has shown us that people do indeed eventualy see through tyrrany.

The Soviet Union didn't have the money or the technology that the society in 1984 had so you can't even compare the two.

And I must ask, havn't you been raised in Capitalist society? And yet hundreds of you flock to the red banner of selflessness. I flock to the black banner of selflessness, and I was raised in Capitalist society. Not that Capitalism could not spawn horrible dicators (as if it hasn't allready), but such men are not Fascist.

Yes but under communism nobody would be given that power. Even if I was given that much power, I would become corrupt. It's inevitable. I'll admit that gladly. Because so would you. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Fascism is one of the most foolish ideas I've ever heard of. We're trying to take a step forward while you're trying to take two steps back.

Laughing Man

23rd July 2005, 18:32

"So you don't trust the people to make the correct decisions. That much is obvious. To say that mankind has been just as ignorant before capitalism as it will be after is completely denying the whole existence of the development of human thought. Have you ever studied philosophy? Do you realize that a LOT more people are atheist or nonreligious nowadays than back then because they used logic to figure out that it's stupid?"

Human thought has advanced in the sense that new philosophies have been writen, but the working of the human brian has changed very little. It would take millions of years to evolve into something differant.

"A dictatorship is a dictatorship, even if it's with more than one leader. You can't hide that."

If Fascism is a dictatorship it is one of the whole government exersized collectivly. I'm not trying to hide anything. I think power, seperated in a few hands is a bit safer than power compressed into one.

"The only difference is that you give power to you "leader" yet the dictator "takes power". (even though most people in history that were considered dictators were GIVEN their power)."

I define things differnatly myself.

"So you believe that a strong elite, which isn't in writing and can change the laws and do whatever they want, is more protective than that of a constitution?"

Indeed. Man must rule man. Paper cannot rule man. An abusive elite can easily slip past a constitution. Under liberal Communism, doesn't that defines abusive? A strong elite is a better protection because it will do its best to keep power in its own hands, not allowing it to fall into the hands of finance or the money powers.

"The Soviet Union didn't have the money or the technology that the society in 1984 had so you can't even compare the two."

True. Perhaps a better example would be America. We in America have merley entered 1984 through the back door. Yet there are still people like you and me who can see through the tyrany.

"Yes but under communism nobody would be given that power. Even if I was given that much power, I would become corrupt. It's inevitable. I'll admit that gladly. Because so would you. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.""

Soviet Russia was vulnerable to elitism because it had not planned for an elite. It developed no philosophy or doctrine for dealing with elites. It expected only a Democratic worker's State when it was formed, and look what happend to it. The very man that formed it, Lenin, because its first dictator. Elites will always arise. Even if the people don't want them, and their worker's State is working, they will still arise. Better, say we, to create an elite from the get-go while some posibility of shaping it is possible than to just wait for it to arise. Creating the authority under a controled envrioment makes a benevolent elite more possible than one formed out of chance. As I explained, Fascism, especialy today could not afford to give one man absolute power. It would be beyound him. The power must be spread.

"Fascism is one of the most foolish ideas I've ever heard of. We're trying to take a step forward while you're trying to take two steps back."

Fascism was built on top of Marxism. It can see farther than Marx because it is standing his shoulders. We are the step forward. You are obsolete.

23rd July 2005, 18:47

Human thought has advanced in the sense that new philosophies have been writen, but the working of the human brian has changed very little. It would take millions of years to evolve into something differant.

The human brain needs no evolving. Just because the brain itself has changed very little means nothing. You can change human thought without changing the brain. You just have to change the world they live in.

I define things differnatly myself.

Care to elaborate?

Indeed. Man must rule man. Paper cannot rule man. An abusive elite can easily slip past a constitution. Under liberal Communism, doesn't that defines abusive? A strong elite is a better protection because it will do its best to keep power in its own hands, not allowing it to fall into the hands of finance or the money powers.

Man is what wrote the Constitution. Man governs man through a set of laws that are unchangeable. When you take the constitution away, everything is subject to change. A strong elite is worse because it will do its best to gain financial power.

True. Perhaps a better example would be America. We in America have merley entered 1984 through the back door. Yet there are still people like you and me who can see through the tyrany.

Are you serious right here? America is nowhere near 1984. That is why there are people who can see through the tyranny. And if you read 1984 you'd understand that there are people that can see through it.

Soviet Russia was vulnerable to elitism because it had not planned for an elite. It developed no philosophy or doctrine for dealing with elites. It expected only a Democratic worker's State when it was formed, and look what happend to it. The very man that formed it, Lenin, because its first dictator. Elites will always arise. Even if the people don't want them, and their worker's State is working, they will still arise. Better, say we, to create an elite from the get-go while some posibility of shaping it is possible than to just wait for it to arise. Creating the authority under a controled envrioment makes a benevolent elite more possible than one formed out of chance. As I explained, Fascism, especialy today could not afford to give one man absolute power. It would be beyound him. The power must be spread.

Lenin was not a dictator. Saying "elites will always rise" is like saying that class will always exist. Which I'd love to see you try to prove.

Fascism was built on top of Marxism. It can see farther than Marx because it is standing his shoulders. We are the step forward. You are obsolete.

Fascism was before feudalism. Hence, two steps back.

Laughing Man

23rd July 2005, 19:04

"The human brain needs no evolving. Just because the brain itself has changed very little means nothing. You can change human thought without changing the brain. You just have to change the world they live in."

The opposite is true. You need to change the way the world is veiwed before you can change it.

"Care to elaborate?"

Read what I said on dictatorship and leadership.

"Man is what wrote the Constitution. Man governs man through a set of laws that are unchangeable. When you take the constitution away, everything is subject to change. A strong elite is worse because it will do its best to gain financial power."

Everything is always subject to change. Such is our relativist world. I'd rather have a strong elite ruling finace than strong finance rulling an elite. This is what happens if the elite is limited.

"Lenin was not a dictator. Saying "elites will always rise" is like saying that class will always exist. Which I'd love to see you try to prove."

Fat chance. I don't think there will always be class. If you put the nation first, classes disapear. There are only countrymen with more or less money and differant jobs, but first countrymen. But regards revolution, here class colaboration is always better than the elimeination of all classes by one. The Fascist revolution is much less bloody, because it need not elimiante entire classes. Elites will always rise is what history has shown us.

"Fascism was before feudalism. Hence, two steps back."

You sniffing something while you read the dialectic?

23rd July 2005, 20:38

The opposite is true. You need to change the way the world is veiwed before you can change it.

This requires no change of the human brain itself. And we are both correct. You must change the way the world is viewed before you can change the world they live in.

Fat chance. I don't think there will always be class. If you put the nation first, classes disapear. There are only countrymen with more or less money and differant jobs, but first countrymen. But regards revolution, here class colaboration is always better than the elimeination of all classes by one. The Fascist revolution is much less bloody, because it need not elimiante entire classes. Elites will always rise is what history has shown us.

If you put the nation first, classes don't disappear. Everything is just justified as beneficial to the nation therefore there are excuses as to what the "elite" do. The communist revolution doesn't need to eliminate (which I assume you mean kill) entire classes. History has shown us the struggle of classes. Take away the classes and there will be no "elite".

Please, use the quote function. It will make you look more sane.

Laughing Man

23rd July 2005, 21:54

You must change the way the world is viewed before you can change the world they live in.

And in so changing the world, justifying your changing of their perception of it.

If you put the nation first, classes don't disappear. Everything is just justified as beneficial to the nation therefore there are excuses as to what the "elite" do. The communist revolution doesn't need to eliminate (which I assume you mean kill) entire classes. History has shown us the struggle of classes. Take away the classes and there will be no "elite".

You can't just take away the classes. You have to provide some kind of substitute for them, or something better for people to channel their energies. Fascism provides the State as an absolute principle in ending the class war. In the same way Communism provides the Commune. The differance is, people can relate to the State and to the nation because myth and propaganda can be built around it and because leaders can represent it. Not that these can't be used in the Commune, but they would loose the effectivnes national traditon's allow.

Please, use the quote function. It will make you look more sane.

I'm loopy.

24th July 2005, 05:45

You can't just take away the classes. You have to provide some kind of substitute for them, or something better for people to channel their energies.

Why?

Fascism provides the State as an absolute principle in ending the class war. In the same way Communism provides the Commune. The differance is, people can relate to the State and to the nation because myth and propaganda can be built around it and because leaders can represent it.

People can't relate to a commune? They would relate more to the commune because a commune is much smaller and therefore they will have more of a sense of community. They don't need myth and propaganda. Why is myth and propaganda needed? You need to constantly convince people to obey the state? So you don't trust the people?

Not that these can't be used in the Commune, but they would loose the effectivnes national traditon's allow.

National traditions? What is a national tradition? Like the 4th of July? Most traditions are based on ethnicity, not nationality. That aside, national traditions would pale in comparison to communal traditions. People can relate more to communal traditions, because they get more comfort in the community than the state. Just as traditions in a small town are more important to people than national "traditions".

Laughing Man

24th July 2005, 06:01

Why?

People, especialy the poor, turn to class as form of comrodery. They unite in their common interest, dictated to them by thier status. But ultimatly, class is a negative common interest because it inspires class war. Instead, the people must believe the whole nation is their brotherhood. One big class, of a sort.

People can't relate to a commune? They would relate more to the commune because a commune is much smaller and therefore they will have more of a sense of community. They don't need myth and propaganda. Why is myth and propaganda needed? You need to constantly convince people to obey the state? So you don't trust the people?

To "inspire them to labor and valorous deed", for one. Times will not always be good. There is a great struggle certain in either a Communist or Fascist victory. Both would need propaganda, and a method to organize it. This is because humans look negativly on their enviroment. Even in heaven there'd probably be people who complain. Propaganda cannot realy make society look good. What it can do is give society due credit. Vis, if wages are good, the people need to be reminded that they are good, else the wages will be taken for granted and dissent will come. This has doomed many a functioning regime. It can make noble struggle seem like tyranny.

National traditions? What is a national tradition? Like the 4th of July? Most traditions are based on ethnicity, not nationality. That aside, national traditions would pale in comparison to communal traditions. People can relate more to communal traditions, because they get more comfort in the community than the state. Just as traditions in a small town are more important to people than national "traditions".

Ethnicity is as much a part of the whole nation as anything. Fascism doesn't neglect such "small town" culture. In fact, historicly it has reveld in it. Fascism can deliver communal traditions, as Fascism is communal.

24th July 2005, 06:15

People, especialy the poor, turn to class as form of comrodery. They unite in their common interest, dictated to them by thier status. But ultimatly, class is a negative common interest because it inspires class war. Instead, the people must believe the whole nation is their brotherhood. One big class, of a sort.

There would be no poor in a communist society. There would be no class. The whole point of a revolution is to destroy class. Therefore, people can't turn to class as it won't exist :lol: !

To "inspire them to labor and valorous deed", for one. Times will not always be good. There is a great struggle certain in either a Communist or Fascist victory. Both would need propaganda, and a method to organize it. This is because humans look negativly on their enviroment. Even in heaven there'd probably be people who complain.

Humans look negatively on their environment? Can you prove that, please? Do you think native americans thought negatively about their environment? They respected and honored their environment. Also, are you saying that humans now look negatively on their environment? Or is it human nature? The first could easily be proven wrong because once you change the environment (i.e. destroy capitalism) you change people's outlook. And there's no such thing as human nature. And there's no such thing as heaven.

Propaganda cannot realy make society look good. What it can do is give society due credit. Vis, if wages are good, the people need to be reminded that they are good, else the wages will be taken for granted and dissent will come. This has doomed many a functioning regime. It can make noble struggle seem like tyranny.

There are no wages in a communist society. Nobody needs to be reminded that wages are good. Bad wages don't destroy a nation.

Ethnicity is as much a part of the whole nation as anything. Fascism doesn't neglect such "small town" culture. In fact, historicly it has reveld in it. Fascism can deliver communal traditions, as Fascism is communal.

Ethnicity isn't nationalism. Ethnicity is regional. There is a huge difference. And I was attacking your argument for national tradition by comparing it to "communist tradition".

Laughing Man

24th July 2005, 07:00

There would be no poor in a communist society. There would be no class. The whole point of a revolution is to destroy class. Therefore, people can't turn to class as it won't exist laugh.gif !

While less of pinacle in our ideology, the end of class is in there. However, and you will agree, that what is most important is the transition from a Capitalist society, where class is so entrenched it might as well be a caste-system. To that end, you need to give the people something more than class. A vision of a future transending class towards things far greater. An all-inclusive comrodery. This is the State to Fascism, and the Commune of Communism.

Humans look negatively on their environment? Can you prove that, please? Do you think native americans thought negatively about their environment? They respected and honored their environment. Also, are you saying that humans now look negatively on their environment? Or is it human nature? The first could easily be proven wrong because once you change the environment (i.e. destroy capitalism) you change people's outlook. And there's no such thing as human nature. And there's no such thing as heaven.

I would say pesimism does come naturaly to humans. It is far easier for us to think bad thoughts than good ones for most of us. Think about it. Unless you're some kind of happy-go-lucky free-spirit that is sometimes born, you probably think negativly more than positive, unless stimulated to think positivly by an outside force. To change the world you must change how the people view it through education, indoctrination and propaganda. But to make these changes you must actualy change the enviroment, which is only possible when the perspective has first been changed.

There are no wages in a communist society. Nobody needs to be reminded that wages are good. Bad wages don't destroy a nation.

Yes. True Communism = No money. But how so? Do you have that Startrek vibe, humanity evolved beyound the use of money? It might be possible to have a world without money, but it would take a long time to set up. If money provides mankind with great power to motivate itself as it does today, I say keep it.

Ethnicity isn't nationalism. Ethnicity is regional. There is a huge difference. And I was attacking your argument for national tradition by comparing it to "communist tradition".

If ethnicity isn't nationalism, Fasism would have no troulbe making it nationalist through propaganda, as it did in past.

P.S. Heaven cannot be proven real or fake, ever. Dieing will be quite an adventure when it comes. I'm in no hurry, but it will be interesting to finaly learn the truth, if such truth there is to learn.

24th July 2005, 07:09

However, and you will agree, that what is most important is the transition from a Capitalist society, where class is so entrenched it might as well be a caste-system. To that end, you need to give the people something more than class. A vision of a future transending class towards things far greater. An all-inclusive comrodery. This is the State to Fascism, and the Commune of Communism.

Wrong. You offer people freedom from what capitalism offers.

I would say pesimism does come naturaly to humans. It is far easier for us to think bad thoughts than good ones for most of us. Think about it. Unless you're some kind of happy-go-lucky free-spirit that is sometimes born, you probably think negativly more than positive, unless stimulated to think positivly by an outside force. To change the world you must change how the people view it through education, indoctrination and propaganda. But to make these changes you must actualy change the enviroment, which is only possible when the perspective has first been changed.

Nothing comes natural to humans. Human nature is a popular myth supported and encouraged by capitalist society in order to maintain its dominance.

Yes. True Communism = No money. But how so? Do you have that Startrek vibe, humanity evolved beyound the use of money? It might be possible to have a world without money, but it would take a long time to set up. If money provides mankind with great power to motivate itself as it does today, I say keep it.

This has been discussed endlessly in other threads. Money, along with nations, do nothing but divide people. So you want to keep money but eliminate class structure? Hypocritical.

If ethnicity isn't nationalism, Fasism would have no troulbe making it nationalist through propaganda, as it did in past.

So lying to the people to get what you want is what you're saying? What about the people that don't belong to that ethnicity? You're going to have a lot of problems.

P.S. Heaven cannot be proven real or fake, ever. Dieing will be quite an adventure when it comes. I'm in no hurry, but it will be interesting to finaly learn the truth, if such truth there is to learn.

Yes it can. God doesn't exist, therefore heaven would be pointless.

jvs

24th July 2005, 12:24

QUOTE

I would say pesimism does come naturaly to humans. It is far easier for us to think bad thoughts than good ones for most of us. Think about it. Unless you're some kind of happy-go-lucky free-spirit that is sometimes born, you probably think negativly more than positive, unless stimulated to think positivly by an outside force. To change the world you must change how the people view it through education, indoctrination and propaganda. But to make these changes you must actualy change the enviroment, which is only possible when the perspective has first been changed.

Nothing comes natural to humans. Human nature is a popular myth supported and encouraged by capitalist society in order to maintain its dominance.

apologies for intruding on the ideological warfare going on between u to, i certainly dont want to get involved. but regarding human nature, it does exist, but not in the generally supposed way. 'human nature' the product of sub-concious influences that we grow up with. (my interpretation of studies done by freud)

so, if a child grows up in an environment where profit and wealtch is what matters in life, then human nature will be greed. apply this to any situation you want. (pessimism, optimism, etc etc)

thats why certain cultures are friendlier to others.

'human nature' is just a self-perpetuating cycle that goes on through societies, which can be broken either by growing up in a cave, or parents teaching their children to value equality and peace.

so it does exist, but not in the way laughing man portrays it. lazar is more correct, from a psychological point of view.

theres my 2 cents

Laughing Man

24th July 2005, 16:56

Wrong. You offer people freedom from what capitalism offers.

And thats not the same thing?

Nothing comes natural to humans. Human nature is a popular myth supported and encouraged by capitalist society in order to maintain its dominance.

Most definetly Capitalism loves human nature, or the myths surrounding it.
Capitalists do not realize there are two kinds of human nature, or maybe they do but try to hide it. The first is that of instincts which still remain from our pre-historic days. Weakend, but still significantly strong today. They make us feel fear, happyness and other emotions, and to a degree they do influence selfishness. But, as ivs described, there is another form of human nature, which is that of your enviroment. Capitalism doesn't realy support species nature as much as it suppresses enviromental education. When theres a shoot-out in a school their all, "well where did that come from?" They don't stop to think about the little bits of the third world they've installed in every city, where most criminals come from. Can you blame a criminal under Capitalism, realy? They attribute it to pre-historic nature. Oh well, can't do anything about it can we. Makes me want to puke. Your enviroment allows you to cultivate your pre-historic instinct towards something good. Through education, indoctrination and conditioning by society, the minds of the people will not be removed of their selfish inner nature. But instead, they will be made to place the group and individual in the same camp without thinking. If so, they will rise to defend the group without thinking and with the same verocity as if they were defending just themselves. At the same time, as comrades the group will rise to the aid of individuals in need. It's like pavlov and his dogs. Conditioning bends human nature to the will of mankind.

This has been discussed endlessly in other threads. Money, along with nations, do nothing but divide people. So you want to keep money but eliminate class structure? Hypocritical.

Only if you veiw classless like a Communist and not as a Fascist. Classless to you means no money. Fascists arn't prepared to give up money. Capitalism has shown how money can grant a nation great power, and Fascists are Nationalists. Classless to us means people no longer are stuck in castes. If through your own effort or lack-there-of you can become very rich or poor, there is no class, but only people with differant amounts of money, the possession of which is a temporary affliction one can easily change.

So lying to the people to get what you want is what you're saying? What about the people that don't belong to that ethnicity? You're going to have a lot of problems.

Who said anything about lying. The best propaganda backs up the truth. Small-town America is as much America as big-city America. That is the truth.

Yes it can. God doesn't exist, therefore heaven would be pointless.

A moot argument. You cannot prove either side correct, so why even try?

Publius

24th July 2005, 17:57

That is a matter of opinion.

Since benefit is subjective, it is a matter of opinion.

I agree there, but that shouldn't stop you from valueing things.

Agreed.

Definetly true, but consider how much power to give value is possed by a wholist elite?

I don't see where you're coming from...

Who is the 'wholist elite'?

Only so if they have the might to keep others from stoping them.

Might makes right is not the axiom I'm starting from.

From the Fascist perspective, the official government should be the real government. The official government then needs more power than any other element that may attempt to repalce it, like finance, the money power and revolutionary movements. So long as the official government is the real government, it is an expression of the people's will.

From my perspective, I don't want governed at all.

A 'real government' can be just as bad as a 'fake government'.

I'll join you. As I said, I don't like dicators.

But you enable them.

Publius

24th July 2005, 18:02

Human nature is a popular myth supported and encouraged by capitalist society in order to maintain its dominance.

Bullshit.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067...6927746-4883243 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-6927746-4883243)

Laughing Man

24th July 2005, 18:19

I don't see where you're coming from...

Both the people and their rulers can give something value. But becuase the rulers have power, they can give something more value.

A 'real government' can be just as bad as a 'fake government'.

Indeed. The world is not perfect.

But you enable them.

I would enable, if possible, an autocratic dictatorship of government. I would do my best to keep such an autocracy, is possible, from entering the hands of only one many. As it is, I don't it's possible for one man to do it. I believe in the guiding will provided by the one individual, but not his holding of total power. But, as the world is not perfect, it's always possible that dictatorships may arise. This wouldn't mean the end of the world.

Publius

24th July 2005, 18:22

Originally posted by Laughing [email protected] 24 2005, 05:19 PM

Both the people and their rulers can give something value. But becuase the rulers have power, they can give something more value.

How can rulers give something value?

If El Presidente says "Sand is more valuable than gold", would that make it so?

Only people, of their own volition, can give something value.

Indeed. The world is not perfect.

Its governments espescially.

I would enable, if possible, an autocratic dictatorship of government. I would do my best to keep such an autocracy, is possible, from entering the hands of only one many. As it is, I don't it's possible for one man to do it. I believe in the guiding will provided by the one individual, but not his holding of total power. But, as the world is not perfect, it's always possible that dictatorships may arise. This wouldn't mean the end of the world.

Unless, of course, it did.

Laughing Man

24th July 2005, 18:32

Only people, of their own volition, can give something value.

If the rulers feel sand has become more usefull than they need only embark on a propaganda campaign to make the people believe so. If sand realy had become more usefull than gold, do to an increased demand for glass houses, this propaganda would be doubly effective.

Its governments espescially.

No arguments here.

Unless, of course, it did.

Yeap :rolleyes:

24th July 2005, 19:26

And thats not the same thing?

Not at all. Offering people freedom is a lot more powerful than offering them a council or a state.

Most definetly Capitalism loves human nature, or the myths surrounding it.
Capitalists do not realize there are two kinds of human nature, or maybe they do but try to hide it. The first is that of instincts which still remain from our pre-historic days. Weakend, but still significantly strong today. They make us feel fear, happyness and other emotions, and to a degree they do influence selfishness. But, as ivs described, there is another form of human nature, which is that of your enviroment. Capitalism doesn't realy support species nature as much as it suppresses enviromental education. When theres a shoot-out in a school their all, "well where did that come from?" They don't stop to think about the little bits of the third world they've installed in every city, where most criminals come from. Can you blame a criminal under Capitalism, realy? They attribute it to pre-historic nature. Oh well, can't do anything about it can we. Makes me want to puke. Your enviroment allows you to cultivate your pre-historic instinct towards something good. Through education, indoctrination and conditioning by society, the minds of the people will not be removed of their selfish inner nature. But instead, they will be made to place the group and individual in the same camp without thinking. If so, they will rise to defend the group without thinking and with the same verocity as if they were defending just themselves. At the same time, as comrades the group will rise to the aid of individuals in need. It's like pavlov and his dogs. Conditioning bends human nature to the will of mankind.

Instinct is intrinsic in every animal, every germ, every virus. This is usually considered a small part of human nature, which doesn't exist. Instinct exists, human nature doesn't.

Only if you veiw classless like a Communist and not as a Fascist. Classless to you means no money. Fascists arn't prepared to give up money. Capitalism has shown how money can grant a nation great power, and Fascists are Nationalists. Classless to us means people no longer are stuck in castes. If through your own effort or lack-there-of you can become very rich or poor, there is no class, but only people with differant amounts of money, the possession of which is a temporary affliction one can easily change.

Good luck creating a classless society with money. Hypocrit.

A moot argument. You cannot prove either side correct, so why even try?

Publius, would you like to do the honor of giving this guy that link to infidel or whatever it was?

Bullshit.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067...6927746-4883243

That looks like a good book. I'd like to quote something from the review (which is my only resource regarding the book, since I haven't read it yet):

People of all cultures are born with a host of inborn predispositions - to acquire language and music, to favor kin over strangers, to desire sex and to be ashamed of it, to value even trades and to punish cheaters, and dozens more.

I'm going to have to read this book to see how he proves these, but most of these are instinct. To acquire language is instinct. I don't know about music. To favor kin over strangers is instinct. To desire sex and be ashamed of it is instinct. I dont know about valuing even trades. I'd like to see how he proves these to be true.

Laughing Man

24th July 2005, 20:05

I don't agree on the equal trade thing, thats for sure.

Not at all. Offering people freedom is a lot more powerful than offering them a council or a state.

The State is freedom. But more importantly, the people are offerd a beliefe, and not a logic, in ending the class war.

Instinct is intrinsic in every animal, every germ, every virus. This is usually considered a small part of human nature, which doesn't exist. Instinct exists, human nature doesn't.

I see them as one and the same, though on the more or less the same logic.

Good luck creating a classless society with money. Hypocrit.

Good luck creating one, period.

Redmau5

24th July 2005, 21:03

Originally posted by Laughing [email protected] 24 2005, 05:32 PM
If sand realy had become more usefull than gold
Gold isn't really useful. It just looks nice.

24th July 2005, 21:40

The State is freedom. But more importantly, the people are offerd a beliefe, and not a logic, in ending the class war.

The state is not freedom. What you say is fascism is not freedom. Beliefs are no match for logic.

I see them as one and the same, though on the more or less the same logic.

Instinct is not the same as what most people call human nature. If you see instinct and human nature as one in the same, then I'm guessing you believe human nature is instinct. In which case you would believe in instinct, and not the popular beliefs of human nature.

Good luck creating one, period.

Good job dodging your hypocracy.

kingbee

24th July 2005, 23:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:22 PM
[QUOTE=Laughing Man,Jul 24 2005, 05:19 PM]

How can rulers give something value?

If El Presidente says "Sand is more valuable than gold", would that make it so?

commodity fetishism does so. and it exists beyond the hands of the people.

Publius

25th July 2005, 00:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:03 PM

Gold isn't really useful. It just looks nice.

Gold is a good conducter.

Laughing Man

25th July 2005, 01:01

Gold is a good conducter.

It is also very maluable, and resists ware. It can be used for anything, and is in fact in most electronics. The space program has found lots of good uses for it.

The state is not freedom. What you say is fascism is not freedom. Beliefs are no match for logic.

Ohhh, your split my sides. Just look at history. I suppose the thousands and thousands in crowds, cheering the elite, were doing so because they liked the elite's logic. That is hilarious! No, the will wins every time. Logic is great for men to have, especialy for leaders. But beliefe is what inspires the people to greater hieghts. This has always been the case in all great nations and movements. It is even the case for this movement, which revears logic as a beliefe, and imagines a glorious future under it.

Good job dodging your hypocracy.

Well, I sure will try.

Publius

25th July 2005, 03:17

It is also very maluable, and resists ware. It can be used for anything, and is in fact in most electronics. The space program has found lots of good uses for it.

Indeed.

The wiring in the space shuttle is done with gold.

Professor Moneybags

25th July 2005, 14:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:03 PM
Gold isn't really useful. It just looks nice.
The best thing about gold, though is that unlike paper money, the govenment can't print it at whim, so it can't go on a spending spree and cause and other great depression.

Professor Moneybags

25th July 2005, 14:41

Originally posted by Laughing [email protected] 24 2005, 03:56 PM
Capitalists do not realize there are two kinds of human nature, or maybe they do but try to hide it. The first is that of instincts which still remain from our pre-historic days. Weakend, but still significantly strong today. They make us feel fear, happyness and other emotions,
Those are emotions, not instincts. Even if humans did have any instincts (I don't think they're applicable to any significant degree anymore), we're not bound by them.

Capitalism doesn't realy support species nature as much as it suppresses enviromental education. When theres a shoot-out in a school their all, "well where did that come from?" They don't stop to think about the little bits of the third world they've installed in every city, where most criminals come from. Can you blame a criminal under Capitalism, realy?

No of course not, it must have been the criminal's "shooting instinct" that was to blame. :rolleyes:

Don't Change Your Name

25th July 2005, 15:45

Originally posted by Laughing [email protected] 25 2005, 12:01 AM
But beliefe is what inspires the people to greater hieghts.
Yeah, of course beliefs take people to 'greater heights'...after they blow themselves up in the name of Allah, their bodyparts go up in the air in different directions.

It also surely worked for those terrorists involved in the WTC attacks.

Laughing Man

25th July 2005, 18:08

The best thing about gold, though is that unlike paper money, the govenment can't print it at whim, so it can't go on a spending spree and cause and other great depression.

The gold standard is obsolete. While yes, inflationary spending should be avoided, but if the government needs to print more money to stimulate industry, end unemployment and create new productive plant, it should be done.

Those are emotions, not instincts. Even if humans did have any instincts (I don't think they're applicable to any significant degree anymore), we're not bound by them.

I disagree. Most humans are instinctivly happy at some things, and afraid of others. We instinctivly run when faced with danger, and laugh when told a good joke. While yes, we can suppresse these, but not all the time. Sometimes it's good not to.

No of course not, it must have been the criminal's "shooting instinct" that was to blame. rolleyes.gif

Exactly! lol

Yeah, of course beliefs take people to 'greater heights'...after they blow themselves up in the name of Allah, their bodyparts go up in the air in different directions.

It also surely worked for those terrorists involved in the WTC attacks.

You act as if Anarchism or Communism doesn't need faith. Of course it does. It needs multitudes of people to believe without question that their movement is the good movement. It needs faith enough to storm the whitehouse and face G.I. bullets. Faith enough to challenge the revanchist Fascist plots against it. All movements need faith liken to religion.

25th July 2005, 18:49

You act as if Anarchism or Communism doesn't need faith. Of course it does. It needs multitudes of people to believe without question that their movement is the good movement. It needs faith enough to storm the whitehouse and face G.I. bullets. Faith enough to challenge the revanchist Fascist plots against it. All movements need faith liken to religion.

It's not about faith. It's about logic. People don't need to believe that the revolution is correct; they know it.

Laughing Man

25th July 2005, 20:21

That is faith silly! To believe totaly. Logic can be behind it, as it should, but it is itself not logic. People don't revolt over logic. They revolt because they were stired up and enraged, usualy by a charasmatic minority.

Professor Moneybags

26th July 2005, 16:52

Originally posted by Laughing [email protected] 25 2005, 05:08 PM
The gold standard is obsolete.
By who's declaration ?

While yes, inflationary spending should be avoided, but if the government needs to print more money to stimulate industry, end unemployment and create new productive plant, it should be done.

If I did that, I'd spend about twenty years behind bars for counterfieting (because I'm actually stealing the money I print). Why do you believe it's okay for the government to do this ?

I disagree. Most humans are instinctivly happy at some things, and afraid of others.

Such as what ?

We instinctivly run when faced with danger,

How can you instinctively know what's dangerous and what isn't in order to run ? If someone points a gun at you and threatens to kill you, are you born with the knowledge that people pointing guns at you = danger ?

No of course not, it must have been the criminal's "shooting instinct" that was to blame. rolleyes.gif

Exactly! lol

This is a joke, right ?