OWN capitalists with this one neat trick -- Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[Zig the N.g]

It's not Socialism silly, it's -Democratic- Socialism!

  The Bee Explains: Democratic Socialism
  https://babylonbee.com/news/the-bee-explains-democratic-socialism


  Dems: 'Socialism Is The Only Way To End This Nightmare Of Prosperity'
  
https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-socialism-is-the-only-way-to-end-this-nightmare-of-prosperity


  Millennial Wishes There Were Some Historical Examples Of Socialism We Could 
Study To Have Some Idea How It Might Turn Out
  
https://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-wishes-there-were-previous-examples-of-socialism-we-could-look-at-to-have-some-idea-how-it-might-turn-out


  Millennial Drops Support For Socialism After Learning How Hard It Is To Get 
Avocado Toast In Venezuela
  
https://babylonbee.com/news/millennial-drops-support-for-socialism-after-learning-how-hard-it-is-to-get-avocado-toast-in-venezuela


  Caravan Of Liberal Americans Makes Way Toward Socialist Paradise Of Venezuela
  
https://babylonbee.com/news/caravan-of-liberal-americans-makes-way-toward-socialist-paradise-of-venezuela



On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 09:30:59AM +0800, jam...@echeque.com wrote:
> On 13/02/2018 06:58, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > As Jordan Peterson points out, that "kill everyone in group X" has
> > been tried a few times in the 20th C. - and the leftist Marxists were
> > best at it.
> 
> Kill (or expel, or somehow make sure that everyone from group X is just not
> around any more) is a very common tactic, and one that is with great
> regularity hugely successful.
> 
> It gets massively under reported, because it embarrasses the winners. But if
> you look at demographics and voting patterns, it is obvious that there has
> been a huge amount of it going on, and it works just great for group not-x.
> 
> Forswearing this popular and hugely successful tactic when other groups do not
> forswear it is unilateral disarmament.
> 
> Other groups will not abandon it unless it looks likely to produce blowback on
> them.
> 
> Stuff like whites getting expelled from Detroit, Christians from the middle
> east, etc is not going to stop unless we start doing similar operations on
> blacks and Muslims etc.
> 
> In any situation where it is probable that group x is going to do us, we need
> to do them first.  Then after few massacres and genocides, and possibly
> numerous nuclear explosions, then maybe then we can make a more stable and
> safe arrangement, but we are not going to get a more stable and safe
> arrangement as long as members of group X can get rid of whites, capitalists,
> Christians, etc, and never have any fear that that whites, capitalists,
> Christians, etc, will return the favor.
> 
> No one is motivated to reduce the likelihood of this tactic being used, as
> long as one side gets deemed to be good guys when they use it, and the other
> side bad guys when they resist it.
> 
> Unilaterally forswearing this ever popular and successful tactic does not mean
> that there will be less of it, it means there will be more of it.
> 
> And the most morally defensible application of this ever popular and regularly
> successful approach is to do to commies, what commies always do to kulaks.

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[jamesd]

On 13/02/2018 06:58, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

As Jordan Peterson points out, that "kill everyone in group X" has
been tried a few times in the 20th C. - and the leftist Marxists were
best at it.


Kill (or expel, or somehow make sure that everyone from group X is just 
not around any more) is a very common tactic, and one that is with great 
regularity hugely successful.


It gets massively under reported, because it embarrasses the winners. 
But if you look at demographics and voting patterns, it is obvious that 
there has been a huge amount of it going on, and it works just great for 
group not-x.


Forswearing this popular and hugely successful tactic when other groups 
do not forswear it is unilateral disarmament.


Other groups will not abandon it unless it looks likely to produce 
blowback on them.


Stuff like whites getting expelled from Detroit, Christians from the 
middle east, etc is not going to stop unless we start doing similar 
operations on blacks and Muslims etc.


In any situation where it is probable that group x is going to do us, we 
need to do them first.  Then after few massacres and genocides, and 
possibly numerous nuclear explosions, then maybe then we can make a more 
stable and safe arrangement, but we are not going to get a more stable 
and safe arrangement as long as members of group X can get rid of 
whites, capitalists, Christians, etc, and never have any fear that that 
whites, capitalists, Christians, etc, will return the favor.


No one is motivated to reduce the likelihood of this tactic being used, 
as long as one side gets deemed to be good guys when they use it, and 
the other side bad guys when they resist it.


Unilaterally forswearing this ever popular and successful tactic does 
not mean that there will be less of it, it means there will be more of it.


And the most morally defensible application of this ever popular and 
regularly successful approach is to do to commies, what commies always 
do to kulaks.

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 05:15:06AM +0800, jam...@echeque.com wrote:
> 
> > > pouring gasoline over the kulak's children
> > > and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried
> > > the seed corn.
> 
> On 25/01/2018 00:40, \0xDynamite wrote:
> > That makes no sense.  Are you against socialist stuctiures?
> 
> 
> Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
> 
> No lessons have been learned. The overwhelming majority of those escaping 
> from Venezuela to other countries vote for
> more of what is happening in Venezuela.
> 
> Having devoured Venezuela, they flee to countries where there is still stuff 
> to steal, and vote to be allowed to steal
> stuff.   Being allowed to steal stuff means that nothing gets produced, hence 
> the condition of Venezuela, North Korea,
> etc.
> 
> The only solution is that we cannot let those kind of people vote,
> we have to restrict their freedom of movement, we have to
> systematically demonize covetousness and envy, and we have to
> punish the politics of covetousness and envy, the activists of
> covetousness and envy, by death. Anyone preaching that group x is
> worse off because group y is well off, preaching that the cure is
> collective action by group x to stop group y from being well off,
> organizing collective action for group y’s stuff to be distributed
> to group x, has to be executed. We just have to kill leftists – not
> all the followers, but we have to lower the status of the followers
> to sinful worthless stupid nasty subhuman trash, and kill all the
> leaders. Nuke leftism from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

As Jordan Peterson points out, that "kill everyone in group X" has
been tried a few times in the 20th C. - and the leftist Marxists were
best at it.

I would (seriously) prefer a less violent transition out of this
global shithole-mess we seem to be in.

Re your assertion "The only solution is that we cannot let
those kind of people [neo-Marxists] vote", perhaps limit voting to
those who are employed?

I know there are no obvious silver bullets, and every potential part
of a solution will require much consideration of the interactions
with other parts of the system, but it's hard to imagine anything
other than another great war if we fail to institute "new"
principles, such as from The Ant and the Grasshopper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper

(Yes some folks are genuinely disabled and the consequent "social
safety net" is humane - and not all problems have to be immediately
solved in order to avoid another great war.)

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[jamesd]

On 25/01/2018 01:30, juan wrote:

you talk as if the "Transpacific Partnership" was dead when in
	reality it's going on full steam. 


Transpacific Partnership is dead.  Trump killed it - in part because his 
business was in the cross hairs, so he nailed them before they nailed him.


Walmart was going to do pretty well out of it, but Trump was getting 
screwed.

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[jamesd]

pouring gasoline over the kulak's children
and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried
the seed corn.


On 25/01/2018 00:40, \0xDynamite wrote:

That makes no sense.  Are you against socialist stuctiures?



Venezuela, North Korea, etc.

No lessons have been learned. The overwhelming majority of those 
escaping from Venezuela to other countries vote for more of what is 
happening in Venezuela.


Having devoured Venezuela, they flee to countries where there is still 
stuff to steal, and vote to be allowed to steal stuff.   Being allowed 
to steal stuff means that nothing gets produced, hence the condition of 
Venezuela, North Korea, etc.


The only solution is that we cannot let those kind of people vote, we 
have to restrict their freedom of movement, we have to systematically 
demonize covetousness and envy, and we have to punish the politics of 
covetousness and envy, the activists of covetousness and envy, by death. 
Anyone preaching that group x is worse off because group y is well off, 
preaching that the cure is collective action by group x to stop group y 
from being well off, organizing collective action for group y’s stuff to 
be distributed to group x, has to be executed. We just have to kill 
leftists – not all the followers, but we have to lower the status of the 
followers to sinful worthless stupid nasty subhuman trash, and kill all 
the leaders. Nuke leftism from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[juan]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:38:43 +0800
jam...@echeque.com wrote:


> 
> A pretty good example of big corporations doing evil was Transpacific 
> Partnership:
> https://blog.jim.com/politics/trump-is-on-the-ball/
>   The Transpacific Partnership was not so much a free trade
> agreement as a system of economic regulation by the “International
> Community”. 


it IS a system of economic regulation by your beloved nazi
corporations, most of them amerikkkan, and it is exactly what we
have. 

you talk as if the "Transpacific Partnership" was dead when in
reality it's going on full steam. Then again, you are just a
lying, rethuglican propaganda bot and of course you want people
to believe that the trump monkey isn't a corporatist when in
reality he's the supreme orange monkey emperor of the
corporatist universe.


> Free Trade for corporations big enough to own a
> skyscraper in a major city 

that's the only sorf of 'free trade' you support. Don't pretend
otherwise. 


> and fill it full of lawyers. Lesser
> businesses would find themselves criminals because of a thousand
> pages of regulation that no one reads and no one understands, least
> of all those enforcing it.
> 
> The practical consequence of the Transpacific Partnership would have 
> been regulation by far away bureaucrats rather than near at hand 
> bureaucrats.  Now arguably this would benefit corporations who are
> big enough to afford skyscrapers full of lawyers at the expense of
> smaller corporations, but it is mighty obvious that the chief
> beneficiaries would have been "the international community", rather
> than evil giant corporations.

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[\0xDynamite]

On 1/24/18, jam...@echeque.com  wrote:
> On 24/01/2018 05:59, \0xDynamite wrote:
>> The only record is that there is hardly any record.  The Constitution
>> does not favor capitalism in anyway, the only thing close to it is
>> property law which was mostly gathered, not by the free market, but by
>> fiat from the US Gov to homesteaders, etc.  So early America favored
>> the individual, yet nothing in the law prevents collective ownership
>> of land or other resources.
>
> Socialism is not collective ownership.
>
> The joint stock corporation is collective ownership.

Okay then, we need to distinguish between "collectivism" and
"socialism".  Are you saying the public corporation is a
"collectivist" enterprise?  And then, I must amend my definition of
socialism to mean collective ownership + community.  Is that an
acceptible defintion?

> Socialism is people like you pouring gasoline over the kulak's children
> and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried
> the seed corn.

That makes no sense.  Are you against socialist stuctiures?

marxos

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[jamesd]

On 24/01/2018 05:59, \0xDynamite wrote:

The only record is that there is hardly any record.  The Constitution
does not favor capitalism in anyway, the only thing close to it is
property law which was mostly gathered, not by the free market, but by
fiat from the US Gov to homesteaders, etc.  So early America favored
the individual, yet nothing in the law prevents collective ownership
of land or other resources. 


Socialism is not collective ownership.

The joint stock corporation is collective ownership.

Socialism is people like you pouring gasoline over the kulak's children 
and setting them on fire to force the kulak to reveal where he buried 
the seed corn.


Collective ownership is Charles the Second liberating corporations to 
make a profit.

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 03:59:38PM -0600, \0xDynamite wrote:
> > A capitalist, or “free market,” system is one in which the prices of
> > goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market,
> > in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any
> > intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other
> > authority.
> 
> WOAH WOAH woah, hold it right there.  You've just conflated two major
> topics of economic theory:  the free market and capitalism -- NOT THE
> SAME.  You can have a FREE MARKET under socialism and COLLECTIVE
> ownership.  But all the owners have to agree generally to sell it on
> the open market.

Firstly, you are quoting the article I posted.


> > Equally as bad is the fact that, in these same countries, large
> > corporations have become so powerful that, by contributing equally to
> > the campaigns of each major political party, they’re able to demand
> > rewards following the elections, that not only guarantee them funds
> > from the public coffers, but protect them against any possible
> > prosecution as a result of this form of bribery.
> 
> This is the real issue.  Apparently the drive and advantage given to
> individualism by the FREE MARKET itself (because the consumers have to
> REWARD the individual for him/her to become a giant) has given them
> enormous advantage, politically.  So again, the real question is:  why
> do the people do this?

Secondly:

 - Are you saying the American government is democratic?

 - Are you also saying that corporations succeed because in
   America there is a FREE MARKET (to use your all caps)?

 - Are you saying that "the people" who "do this" are acting in,
   on, or otherwise by, free market and democratic principles?


> > There’s a word for this form of governance, and it’s fascism.
> 
> And there's a word for this type of effect:  APATHY (from the people).
> There is an undiagnosed mental illness in the general populace,
> probably caused by mass injections of polio to children.  It is
> clinically diagnosable using the criteria of the DSM.
> 
> > Many people today, if asked to describe fascism, would refer to
> > Mussolini, black boots, and tyranny. They would state with confidence
> > that they, themselves, do not live under fascism. But, in fact,
> > fascism is, by definition, a state in which joint rule by business
> > and state exists. (Mussolini himself stated that fascism would better
> > be called corporatism, for this reason.)
> 
> I think this is a distortion of fascism, which to me simply means rule
> by ideology, not specifically business.

May be so.


> > The choice of the reader is to look upon the world as his oyster - to
> > assess whether he is more or less content with the country he’s in
> > and confident that it will continue to be a good place in which to
> > live, work, invest, and prosper, or, if not, to consider
> > diversifying, or even moving entirely, to a more rewarding, more
> > capitalist jurisdiction.
> 
> Huh?  No, what needs to happen is a diversification of economic experiments.

And the article you responded to above is pointing out the obvious -
that we do not have a modern democractic, or capitalist, experiment
... at least that's what I think it's saying…

Re: [MINISTRY] capitalism v fascism/ corporatism - what are we (the West) living under?

[\0xDynamite]

> Destroying The "Capitalism Has Failed" Narrative
>
> In response to this, conservative thinkers offer a knee-jerk reaction
> that collectivism has also had a dismal record of performance.
> Neither group tends to gain any ground with the other group, but over
> time, the West is moving inexorably in the collectivist direction.

The only record is that there is hardly any record.  The Constitution
does not favor capitalism in anyway, the only thing close to it is
property law which was mostly gathered, not by the free market, but by
fiat from the US Gov to homesteaders, etc.  So early America favored
the individual, yet nothing in the law prevents collective ownership
of land or other resources.  Hence farmer's co-ops, etc. in middle
america (a giant irony of the area which shows their complete lack of
awareness on economic theory).

> As I see it, liberals are putting forward what appears on the surface
> to be a legitimate criticism, and conservatives are countering it
> with the apology that, yes, capitalism is failing, but collectivism
> is worse.

It's not worse, it's just that the powers above that acquired the
initial resources did so by guns and are loathe to let it go.

> A capitalist, or “free market,” system is one in which the prices of
> goods and services are determined by consumers and the open market,
> in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any
> intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other
> authority.

WOAH WOAH woah, hold it right there.  You've just conflated two major
topics of economic theory:  the free market and capitalism -- NOT THE
SAME.  You can have a FREE MARKET under socialism and COLLECTIVE
ownership.  But all the owners have to agree generally to sell it on
the open market.

> Equally as bad is the fact that, in these same countries, large
> corporations have become so powerful that, by contributing equally to
> the campaigns of each major political party, they’re able to demand
> rewards following the elections, that not only guarantee them funds
> from the public coffers, but protect them against any possible
> prosecution as a result of this form of bribery.

This is the real issue.  Apparently the drive and advantage given to
individualism by the FREE MARKET itself (because the consumers have to
REWARD the individual for him/her to become a giant) has given them
enormous advantage, politically.  So again, the real question is:  why
do the people do this?

> There’s a word for this form of governance, and it’s fascism.

And there's a word for this type of effect:  APATHY (from the people).
There is an undiagnosed mental illness in the general populace,
probably caused by mass injections of polio to children.  It is
clinically diagnosable using the criteria of the DSM.

> Many people today, if asked to describe fascism, would refer to
> Mussolini, black boots, and tyranny. They would state with confidence
> that they, themselves, do not live under fascism. But, in fact,
> fascism is, by definition, a state in which joint rule by business
> and state exists. (Mussolini himself stated that fascism would better
> be called corporatism, for this reason.)

I think this is a distortion of fascism, which to me simply means rule
by ideology, not specifically business.

> The choice of the reader is to look upon the world as his oyster - to
> assess whether he is more or less content with the country he’s in
> and confident that it will continue to be a good place in which to
> live, work, invest, and prosper, or, if not, to consider
> diversifying, or even moving entirely, to a more rewarding, more
> capitalist jurisdiction.

Huh?  No, what needs to happen is a diversification of economic experiments.

Marxos
P.S.  It's ready over at wiki.hackerspaces.org