Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[piscator]

What does it mean to clam that capitalism is Fascism? What is absolute truth? What is meagre, and when is it correct to use it as an adjective?

[pErvinalia]

unfettered capitalism would seem likely to lead to fascism (that is, the full merger of corporate and government). Thankfully we don't have unfettered capitalism, despite a few nuts desiring it.

[piscator]

He's not a jellyfish, so shell no he won't shuck and jive for the Man!

[JimC]

rEvolutionist wrote:

...The value of Greens, anarchists, Corbyns, Sanders etc, are that even if they don't actually succeed in getting to power, they maintain a fight against the constant tide the other way. Without them the centre would be WAY more to the right than what it is today...

There is some truth in that; we need to hear the whole spectrum of political views, they need to be out in the open, provoking discussion and pushing back against views that are purely there for the wealthy end of town. In a similar vein, it is the presence of a trade union movement which stops the almost automatic tendency of capitalism to squeeze workers more and more and more...

The trouble is (which you almost imply) that some idealistic people will buy into the full Corbynite or Green package, without considering the unrealistic (and potentially left-authoritarian) nature of the policies involve...

[JimC]

unfettered capitalism would seem likely to lead to fascism (that is, the full merger of corporate and government). Thankfully we don't have unfettered capitalism, despite a few nuts desiring it.

And much of the political argument is about the nature and extent of those fetters...

[Seth]

I don't claim that the vast majority of people are Fascists, I clam that capitalism is Fascism, which is the absolute truth enunciated by Bergson himself.
It's hardly an "absolute truth" considering the fact that nobody can agree on what "fascism" actually is and as George Orwell wrote in 1944, "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'". Source: Wikipedia

Capitalism doesn't have any of the salient aspects of any form of fascism really because, you see, Capitalism is not a political concept it is purely and explicitly an economic model.

Both left and right have used the capitalist economic model at times.

As for the "vast majority of people," only those who are, or approve of capitalism have nexus to Bergson et al, but they aren't actually Fascists, a category limited to those who are smart enough to places themselves in the elite leadership status of Mosca's Ruling Class, instead that vast, seething majority of disorganised swine are the useful idiots Mosca referred to who spend their lives mindlessly fighting each other for the meagre slops and spillages from the trough of capitalism, too innately stupid to understand that they are being starved and slaughtered to secure the ivory towers of their Lords and Masters.

Which of course is utter crap because, as I said, capitalism is not a political ideology, it is an economic model. It describes, and it ONLY describes a relationship between capital and the markets and has nothing to do with politics or "elitism." Perceptions of elitism that flow from operations of capitalism in the markets have to do with income inequality and how the functions of capitalism are drawn in terms of political ideology and objectives. To the Marxist, capitalism is an inherent evil because it can lead to income inequality, whereas to the Capitalist it is the basis of all that is right and fair about free market economies that give each and every worthy individual the ability to succeed in the marketplace and prosper.

Whether your "Lord and Master" is a wealthy capitalist or a Marxist leader is not dependent upon capitalism, but upon political ideology and how it views the distinction between collectivism and individualism, which is the root divide involved here.

Capitalists believe in individual rights and private property as sacrosanct bedrock principles of free markets whereas Marxists believe in collective rights and the disavowal of private property rights and free markets.

Individualism vs. collectivism, plain and simple.

[Seth]

Well, it's good to be the King, after all.

...sometimes..., said King Louie to Marie on the way to the neck-chopper.

[Seth]

As usual, this is becoming a polarising argument, with both rEv and MrJonno being forced to the extreme ends of their own arguments.

There is some truth, albeit a depressing one, in Jonno's pessimistic view of the innately selfish motivation of most people, in at least many circumstances.

What's depressing about it? It's pure-quill evolution in action. Every higher living organism on earth is fundamentally and innately selfish for very good and valid reasons of individual survival. Altruism only occurs in two circumstances: One, when an altruistic act will help to ensure the survival of one's progeny; and two, when all other basic Maslowvian needs have been met and there is a surplus of needs (sex, shelter, food, etc.) available, the distribution of which to others somehow enhances the survival or welfare of the altruistic organism. Beyond that it's always first and foremost about protecting the interests of the individual and progeny against intrusions by others that might decrease the chances for survival and procreation.

Not all of this derives from manipulation by vested interests in society, but certainly those vested interests make use of it, and reinforce it at every opportunity, which tends to be one of rEv's central points. The more such manipulation is exposed and discussed, the better - it always works best when people are distracted by bread and circuses...

One is fighting human nature and billions of years of genetic programming when one attempts to ignore basic human behavioral principles in favor of abstract idealism.

And it is not impossible to make at least some moves towards a more progressive society, with some clever policies, and a little luck, but it will still be, as always, an imperfect compromise.

I'd like to know your detailed definition of "progressive society" please, because I'm pretty sure that you and I don't have a remotely congruent understanding of that term. To me "Progressivism" is exemplified by Woodrow Wilson and the forms of Progressivism seen here in the US, which is incredibly arrogant and authoritarian. What do you mean by "progressive?"

[Seth]

That said, I agree with you rEv, being "elite" is very, very subjective. Those who actually are elite know it and don't mention it. Those who aren't at all elite label those who are better off than themselves as "elite" as a part of the practice of class warfare that Marx touted as the way to get the proletarian masses stirred up enough to kill the bourgeoisie merchant class, who themselves suffered under the thumb of the privileged aristocracy by rule of law.

The elite are waging class war on the vast majority of the population.

I completely disagree...well, in a capitalist system anyway. You see, the "vast majority of the population" are not opponents or enemies to the "elite," they are customers upon whom the elite depend for their elite perks.

If anything, the lumpen proletariat holds the true reins of power because all the proles have to do to take down any "elite" that they don't like is to stop buying their products and services. When that happens, the "elite" wither away very quickly...or they change their behavior to curry favor with the proles, without whom they cannot make a stinking dime.

Only cowards back down in the face of an existential threat like that.

Only an idiot would kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Do you like the computer you are using to post here? Odds are it's a Windows box and you have the "elite" Bill Gates to thank for it. If you don't like Bill Gates or what he does, then buy an Apple computer instead. Or don't buy ANY computer. Without you, the lumpen proletariat and your willing cooperation Bill Gates would still be in his mom's garage tinkering.

I love this idiotic rhetoric pumped out by conservatives that mentioning the unravelling of the stability of society (i.e. pointing out massive wealth inequality and corporate/wealth hijacking of our "democracies"), that it's somehow a war by a small group of aware progressives against the power of the elite. Talk about David and Goliath.

It ain't really a "small group" of progressives, it's a small group of Progressive elites manipulating and using the lumpen proletariat to their own elite ends. The Progressives want to screw the little guy every bit as much (if not more) than you think the "conservatives" do. Progressives want what they want and intend to achieve it no matter what the proletariat wants or prefers because Progressives live in the headspace that nobody but the Progressive elite are smart enough to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel. Talk about arrogant elitist fucks, Progressives are the epitome of that group of scumbags.

"Conservatives" by which I mean those who practice capitalism and respect individual rights on the other hand NEED the proletariat to be happy so that they have employed, well-paid consumers who will buy their products and thereby cycle capital and create wealth for all, including the conservative elite.

[Seth]

That said, I agree with you rEv, being "elite" is very, very subjective. Those who actually are elite know it and don't mention it. Those who aren't at all elite label those who are better off than themselves as "elite" as a part of the practice of class warfare that Marx touted as the way to get the proletarian masses stirred up enough to kill the bourgeoisie merchant class, who themselves suffered under the thumb of the privileged aristocracy by rule of law.

The elite are waging class war on the vast majority of the population. Only cowards back down in the face of an existential threat like that. I love this idiotic rhetoric pumped out by conservatives that mentioning the unravelling of the stability of society (i.e. pointing out massive wealth inequality and corporate/wealth hijacking of our "democracies"), that it's somehow a war by a small group of aware progressives against the power of the elite. Talk about David and Goliath.

There will always be an elite (hierarchy) if communism has shown us anything it is that we will get just another elite.

Yeah, that's possibly true. But it's not necessarily guaranteed. So we should always fight against injustice and corruption and sociopaths. Whatever side of the political spectrum they fall.

... by being sociopathic cunts yourselves...and therein lies both the hypocrisy and the problem.

Some people are suited by evolution to be "elite," and most are not. That's biology. Get used to it. Most of the proles don't want to risk what capital they have on a risky economic venture that they could lose everything by participating in. They want a weekly paycheck guaranteed for their 40 hours of labor and are willing to take a lower level of compensation for their labor in return for the security of just having to go to work each day and put in their time being of use to their employer. They are satisfied with the transaction and the compensation because they choose to be satisfied with it by showing up for work each day rather than going out on an economic limb that could leave them penniless overnight.

The "elite" are different. They are risk-takers who are willing to venture their capital on something new that may or may not succeed, and they expect, and are entitled to a greater return on their investment because of the risks they are willing to take that the worker is not.

[Seth]

unfettered capitalism would seem likely to lead to fascism (that is, the full merger of corporate and government). Thankfully we don't have unfettered capitalism, despite a few nuts desiring it.

Nobody I know of has ever argued for "unfettered capitalism" except the nut who authored the post I'm responding to.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...What do you mean by "progressive?"...

A mixture of policies, really, some of which you will hate, others you may support.

One important strand is a liberalisation of social and legal controls on sex and drugs - I would call that progressive, and it is probably an area where we might intersect...

The other strand, though, involves policies to prevent the excesses of capitalism from making the lives of ordinary people miserable. This is still in the context of a basically free enterprise society, and there are real limits to how far governments should attempt to control markets, but none the less, government policies in the areas of health care and support for the disadvantaged are always going to be opposed by the wealthy and powerful. In successful western social democracies, such policies have not prevented good economic outcomes...

[pErvinalia]

Why are you bothering, Jim? You know this is just going to disappear down the "Marxist" hole..

[JimC]

Why are you bothering, Jim? You know this is just going to disappear down the "Marxist" hole..

Just want to make my centrist position very clear...

[pErvinalia]

You be better of trying to argue centrism with me, as at least I won't call you a fascist (or FUI - Fascist Useful Idiot).