Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[JimC]

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).

One strand of Seth's argument against the left is the extent to which many left wing governments in the past have been very authoritarian, and often surprisingly conservative in their views on matters of sex and gender, and strongly intent on government controls in such areas (Soviet Russia, for example). I suppose I'm trying to say it ain't necessarily so...

[pErvinalia]

Reality has no place in this debate.

[Brian Peacock]

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

You'll note that I defined Fascists as "those who are smart enough to places themselves in the elite leadership status of Mosca's Ruling Class." So let us use the principles of social, political, and economic organisation proposed by Mosca and Bergson etc - that the 'best' way to order society and all social activity is through the enforced control of a self-sustaining ruling elite. This makes Monarchism and Stalinism equally fascistic. My point, such that it is, was that Capitalists tout Capitalism in directly comparable terms.

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.

Don't be silly. Capitalism encompasses and enfolds principles of rights, principles of law, and principles of economics, and it is proposed as the operational principle and standard measure of these activities.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

Capitalism is primarily touted as a moral imperative, and when asserted as a normative like this it is rendered an ideology of ideologues like any other.

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.

Nonsense. Capitalism underpins, and is used to justify an approach to the structure, and operation of, a great number of private, public and social institutions.

It describes, and it ONLY describes a relationship between capital and the markets and has nothing to do with politics or "elitism."

Time to point out where trickle-down economics, for example, is not predicated on serving the interests of a wealthy, capital-rich elite who self-assert a wealth-entitled right to order society and make decision in their interests first.

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.

And who structures and regulates the marketplace, and to what end?

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.

All individuals operate within the social collective. Your dichotomy between the individual and the collective is a false and divisive one.

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.

And how does this sentence square with your assertion that the Capitalism cannot and does not amount to a political ideal?

Individualism vs. collectivism, plain and simple.

Personally I'd prefer to rationally balance the interests of the two rather than pitch one against the other in an ultimate death-match.

[Seth]

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...

This is part of the problem. "Progressives" and "Progressivism" as proper nouns have a pretty clear definition that doesn't include "liberalization" of anything. According to the Progressive dialectic it's about the form and structure of government. Progressivism, beginning really with Teddy Roosevelt and hitting its stride with Woodrow Wilson is about replacing democracy with the scientific bureaucracy. Wilson (who was a proud racist and elitist) believed that the people are, in general, simply too stupid or ignorant to know what's best for them and that it is the duty of government to play mommy and make all the rules. But worse than that is the Progressive notion that most of the government apparatchiks (bureaucrats) should NOT be elected, but rather should be "scientific experts" hired for PERMANENT placement in government so that their supposedly objective scientific expertise can be applied to the problems of governing the ignorant lumpen proletariat without any danger of political pressure from either elected officials or the public. These bureaucrats would essentially have lifetime sinecures and would be very difficult to dismiss, even if the political winds opposed them.

And that's exactly what Wilson put in place with the Civil Service Act, which is why we have legions of bureaucrats that we can't get rid of even when they engage in outright fraud and malfeasance, like the ones at the VA who just thumb their noses at everyone as they divert money to their personal benefit but who are protected by the civil service system from being fired, even by the President.

The next aspect of Progressivism is the supreme position of the President as the autocrat in charge of everything. Wilson's vision was that Congress would be defanged and would become nothing more than a debating society that would advise the President, but would have no power over policy or law. All power to make law and policy would be in the hands of the President, as administered by the non-elected bureaucratic "experts." His rationale was that, in addition to the core philosophy that the people are too stupid and ignorant to know what's good for them, that the President, being elected, is "closer to the will of the people" and thus more in tune with what the public wants and needs, and that to place either Congress or the Courts in the way of absolute presidential power was to interfere with the proper administration of the country, which Wilson felt should be vested almost entirely in the person of the President. He loathed the concept of checks and balances and bridled at the Supreme Court telling him he couldn't do exactly as he pleased.

And that is what we see with Obama, and with Bush Jr. before him, who was a Progressive who idolized Woodrow Wilson. We see Obama trying to act without the advice and consent of Congress and in defiance of the federal courts in his "administrative" capacity as President.

As for "liberalism" with respect to individual freedoms of conscience and choice, that's not a Progressive plank at all. Wilson was a despot who threw nearly one hundred and fifty thousand people in jail for exercising their free-speech rights to object to his entering the US into WWI and conscripting Americans to fight in Europe.

As I said, Progressivism, which is just a renaming of imperialism and Marxist socialism, isn't about individual freedoms, it's about constructing an impenetrable and invulnerable bureaucratic government (just like Stalin et al did) that need pay no attention whatsoever to what the people themselves want. Wilson's only sop to democracy was his obedience to being unelected at the voter's first opportunity. However, if Wilson had the ability to take and refuse to relinquish power I have no doubt that he would have happily become the Stalin of the United States and absolute ruler for life.

Fortunately he didn't try because he, like every other President in history, knows that all it takes to depose a tyrant is one individual who is willing to die to kill him, much less 150 million armed citizens determined to do so.

[DaveDodo007]

But in the case of Corbyn, Sanders et al, these people are overtly anti-elite. So supporters of them can hardly be elite, let alone a tool of the elite. The reasonable question is: does the political system we have inevitably lead to corruption and elitism? I kind of suspect that it does, and the events in Greece and Syriza selling out bear truth to that.

I wouldn't call them anti-elitist, they just want to usurp the elite position. Commissars and apparatchiks, that's the ticket. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Such is the human condition. The biggest Bernie supporters I run into here are university students, and anyone who has ever been a university student knows full well they can't find their own ass with both hands and a GPS. Plus they're utterly doomed to failure. No society has ever been even remotely "fair", not on the playground nor in the hallowed Halls of Power. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The trick is to figure out who the next boss is and position yourself as a little remora to their Great White, protected by their bulk and feeding off their scraps. Well, either that or go live on a trawler.

Well said, I don't understand people who don't get this. Every person who wants to govern you is a sociopath and they have just picked your demographic as useful to get them elected. The best you can do is vote for the politicians whose views at least alight mostly with yours. As it got them power and so they will stick with it whilst it is useful to them.

Edit: People like rEv and the like who think there are really politicians who care about them are so naive it is untrue. They just want our vote end of.

But as a conservative your brain is telling you that everyone is like you - i.e selfish. You don't have the internal experience of people who aren't conservatives and aren't destructively selfish. There really are people in the world who care about others in principle. My usual thing is to, as I did in this or the other thread, ask the question: If you or I ran for politics would we initially be doing for the power, or for a genuine belief that we could make things better? That question doesn't work so well for conservatives, as conservatives are usually into things for their own selfish benefit. But if you could accept for a minute that some progressives are truly altruistic in their beliefs (to an extent), can you accept that if someone like me went into politics it would be for the benefit of society? The most interesting question is as I've mentioned: would we all (including Corbyn, Sanders, Tsiparis, Australian Greens, etc) end up a tool of the system and basically corrupt and liars if we got to power? I suspect this is the case. If I entered politics I would drop out before that point. It will be interesting to see what Corbyn does on the small chance he becomes PM. He seems to be sticking to his anti-elitism guns at the moment, but can it pragmatically last?

I think you have a point that some idealist do go into politics but it is soon beaten out of them or they quit in despair. The system hasn't existed for hundreds of years to have some greenhorn mess shit up. Don't think Corbyn is a nice guy as he wouldn't have lasted this long in politics if he was. He is just as nasty to his targets as you are, the left thinks there are no bad tactics only bad targets i. e. people we disagree with.

[JimC]

That, of course, is your political opinion - it isn't the holy truth about politics...

Your particular set of ideas have to fight it out in the political marketplace of elections. If enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, well done, you'll elect candidates to your liking.

If not, suck it up, princess...

[DaveDodo007]

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

That is bullshit, whatever my disagreements with JimC you never get a left good, right bad response as he puts some effort into his replies.

[DaveDodo007]

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...

Drugs I will give you but do you realize when it comes to sex the left are the new puritans. What the fuck is objectification if the sexes don't fancy each other then humans will die out. If both the man and the women have been drinking then have sex then the man is a rapist and the women has been raped. Feminist 'logic' 101. Women don't have any agency but feminism is about equal rights, lol.

[DaveDodo007]

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...

This is part of the problem. "Progressives" and "Progressivism" as proper nouns have a pretty clear definition that doesn't include "liberalization" of anything. According to the Progressive dialectic it's about the form and structure of government. Progressivism, beginning really with Teddy Roosevelt and hitting its stride with Woodrow Wilson is about replacing democracy with the scientific bureaucracy. Wilson (who was a proud racist and elitist) believed that the people are, in general, simply too stupid or ignorant to know what's best for them and that it is the duty of government to play mommy and make all the rules. But worse than that is the Progressive notion that most of the government apparatchiks (bureaucrats) should NOT be elected, but rather should be "scientific experts" hired for PERMANENT placement in government so that their supposedly objective scientific expertise can be applied to the problems of governing the ignorant lumpen proletariat without any danger of political pressure from either elected officials or the public. These bureaucrats would essentially have lifetime sinecures and would be very difficult to dismiss, even if the political winds opposed them.

And that's exactly what Wilson put in place with the Civil Service Act, which is why we have legions of bureaucrats that we can't get rid of even when they engage in outright fraud and malfeasance, like the ones at the VA who just thumb their noses at everyone as they divert money to their personal benefit but who are protected by the civil service system from being fired, even by the President.

The next aspect of Progressivism is the supreme position of the President as the autocrat in charge of everything. Wilson's vision was that Congress would be defanged and would become nothing more than a debating society that would advise the President, but would have no power over policy or law. All power to make law and policy would be in the hands of the President, as administered by the non-elected bureaucratic "experts." His rationale was that, in addition to the core philosophy that the people are too stupid and ignorant to know what's good for them, that the President, being elected, is "closer to the will of the people" and thus more in tune with what the public wants and needs, and that to place either Congress or the Courts in the way of absolute presidential power was to interfere with the proper administration of the country, which Wilson felt should be vested almost entirely in the person of the President. He loathed the concept of checks and balances and bridled at the Supreme Court telling him he couldn't do exactly as he pleased.

And that is what we see with Obama, and with Bush Jr. before him, who was a Progressive who idolized Woodrow Wilson. We see Obama trying to act without the advice and consent of Congress and in defiance of the federal courts in his "administrative" capacity as President.

As for "liberalism" with respect to individual freedoms of conscience and choice, that's not a Progressive plank at all. Wilson was a despot who threw nearly one hundred and fifty thousand people in jail for exercising their free-speech rights to object to his entering the US into WWI and conscripting Americans to fight in Europe.

As I said, Progressivism, which is just a renaming of imperialism and Marxist socialism, isn't about individual freedoms, it's about constructing an impenetrable and invulnerable bureaucratic government (just like Stalin et al did) that need pay no attention whatsoever to what the people themselves want. Wilson's only sop to democracy was his obedience to being unelected at the voter's first opportunity. However, if Wilson had the ability to take and refuse to relinquish power I have no doubt that he would have happily become the Stalin of the United States and absolute ruler for life.

Fortunately he didn't try because he, like every other President in history, knows that all it takes to depose a tyrant is one individual who is willing to die to kill him, much less 150 million armed citizens determined to do so.

Progressivism = regressive left.

[pErvinalia]

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

That is bullshit, whatever my disagreements with JimC you never get a left good, right bad response as he puts some effort into his replies.

Are you drunk again? This was referring to Seth, not you.

[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

You'll note that I defined Fascists as "those who are smart enough to places themselves in the elite leadership status of Mosca's Ruling Class." So let us use the principles of social, political, and economic organisation proposed by Mosca and Bergson etc - that the 'best' way to order society and all social activity is through the enforced control of a self-sustaining ruling elite. This makes Monarchism and Stalinism equally fascistic. My point, such that it is, was that Capitalists tout Capitalism in directly comparable terms.

I don't see it. While I agree that monarchism and Stalinism are equally fascistic I do not see that Capitalism has even the vaguest connection to either. As I said, Capitalism is an economic model, not a political one. It's often falsely cast as a political one, but it's not, as you demonstrate above.

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.

Don't be silly. Capitalism encompasses and enfolds principles of rights, principles of law, and principles of economics, and it is proposed as the operational principle and standard measure of these activities.

The ECONOMIC operational principle. Does Capitalism rely on principles of rights, law and economics to function? Yes, of course it does. Capitalism requires that individuals be able to freely participate in economic activities according to their will as part of voluntary, free-market transactions and that necessarily infers the rights of private property and contract, which are incompatible with collectivism, but that's about it. Nowhere does Capitalism say that it prefers or must have a "self-sustaining elite." The barrier to entry to Capitalism is the ability to generate capital. Capitalism does not say "you may not be a Capitalist because you are of an inferior class." It says "If you have the skill and ability to use Capitalism to succeed economically you are a Capitalist." It's the most fundamental of meritocracies.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

Capitalism is primarily touted as a moral imperative, and when asserted as a normative like this it is rendered an ideology of ideologues like any other.

I would agree with Rand and disagree with you. While Capitalisms "moral justification" is as Rand puts it, it is not the dogma or doctrine of Capitalism itself, it's a judgment imposed on the actual functioning of Capitalism, which as Rand says, is consonant with man's rational nature and protects man's survival qua man. The "ruling principle" of "justice" has as its meaning "justice in the economic relations of men." Capitalism is the functional method of maximizing individual liberty and success because absent economic opportunity man becomes little more than a slave to those who control the purse strings, as we see in Marxist Stalinism.

Capitalism underpins, and is used to justify an approach to the structure, and operation of, a great number of private, public and social institutions.

Except as a utopian fantasy separating man from economics is simply impossible. So while Capitalism may "underpin" the structure of society, the economic model is merely a place holder for the fundamental drives of all (higher) living creatures to seek out and obtain and defend the exclusive possession of those physical resources that are necessary for the survival of the organism and its progeny as a matter of evolutionary imperative.

Thus, Capitalism is morally justified not because it is used to underpin the structure of social institutions but because it, and it alone, provides opportunity to acquire resources, defense of the sole possession and private use of those resources, and is an economic trade system that is just to each individual's ownership and possession of private property and nothing more.

But that's not the "purpose" of Capitalism in the sense that it was designed for that purpose, it simply evolved to that purpose as a natural function of fundamental human nature and need as an economic model for evolutionary success. The political envelope within which Capitalism operates is a different animal entirely because political systems deal with the resolution of conflicts between individuals over exercise of their fundamental rights (biological imperatives listed above) where they come into conflict with other individuals. Government is merely the steward of justice, not the provider of either it or economic security. Economic security is achieved by the individual's own efforts to acquire, possess and enjoy the fruits of his own labors free from the dictates and controls of others where, and to the extent that such exercises do not unduly infringe on the equal rights to acquire, possess and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Government merely adjudicates such disputes, it does not provide the tools for acquiring or enjoying the fruits of one's labor, though it may provide the tools of defense of such possession to make justice a reality.

Capitalism exists as the naturally occurring economic component of human society and government exists to secure the blessings of economic liberty. Two different things that act together but are not the same at all.

It describes, and it ONLY describes a relationship between capital and the markets and has nothing to do with politics or "elitism."

Time to point out where trickle-down economics, for example, is not predicated on serving the interests of a wealthy, capital-rich elite who self-assert a wealth-entitled right to order society and make decision in their interests first.

Asserting a "wealth-entitled right to order society and make decisions in their interests" is not an aspect of Capitalism at all. That is a false assumption. It may be that the "wealthy, capital-rich" feel entitled to do so, but that is not a function or authority that Capitalism grants to them and by and large it's a fiction and a psychological derangement of those who feel that wealth entitles them to rule. That, however, is not the case when it comes to Capitalism, which says absolutely nothing whatever about political control of others by capitalists. If such a system has been imposed on a capitalistic society it is not on account of Capitalism, it is in fact a debasement and denial of the fundamental precepts of Capitalism that acknowledge the equality of all persons in the economic sphere where it comes to using and enjoying the benefits Capitalism supports: the right to acquire, possess and enjoy one's own property.

What you're describing is nothing more than elitism of the wealthy that they may succeed in imposing not because of Capitalism but because of the complacence of those lower on the economic ladder and their submission to the will of the economically successful. But there is nothing inherent in Capitalism that authorizes such political and social controls. Nothing at all.

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.

And who structures and regulates the marketplace, and to what end?

It structures itself through the actions of billions of individual daily buying and consuming decisions and it is regulated by the rational self-interest of every participant in the free market. Superimposed over that may be a political structure of "government" that acts as a policeman and arbiter of disputes, but fundamentally a free market controls itself based on the decisions of producers and consumers. That's why its called a "free market."

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.

All individuals operate within the social collective. Your dichotomy between the individual and the collective is a false and divisive one.

Yes, they do, but that's not the point at all. The point is that in an individualist society the individual has the right to seek, obtain and enjoy those things he deems necessary to his comfort and satisfaction and his obligation to others extends only so far as not initiating force or fraud upon them. Every other social behavior is a matter of individual choice and voluntary participation. The underlying principle is that the needs of the collective do not axiomatically outweigh the rights of the few and nothing can be forced on the individual without his consent.

In the collective society the individual does not have the right to seek, obtain and enjoy those things he deems necessary to his comfort and satisfaction, he is only permitted to seek and obtain what the collective deems he is worthy of, and he may only enjoy those things to the extent that the collective deems he is permitted to do, and he has an obligation to do whatever the collective demands of him, regardless of how it might impact his own personal liberty or happiness because the fundamental precept of collectivism is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

So while both "operate within the social collective" how they operate and what liberties they may exercise and freedoms they may enjoy make all the difference.

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.

And how does this sentence square with your assertion that the Capitalism cannot and does not amount to a political ideal?

Because the right to private property and individual rights is founded in nature and observable natural behavior of all higher creatures whereas the collectivist system is ant-like it its disrespect for the individual and his rights. Capitalism is merely the economic framework within which humans practice their natural instincts and serve their biological imperatives. It doesn't govern them, they govern it through their billions of daily individual decisions about what to buy and what not to buy.

Individualism vs. collectivism, plain and simple.

Personally I'd prefer to rationally balance the interests of the two rather than pitch one against the other in an ultimate death-match.

You can't. They are diametrically opposed to one another. Either you believe that the individual has the right to autonomy and self-actualization consistent with their voluntary assumption (or rejection) of societal obligations or you believe that the individual is nothing more than a cog in the collectivist machine whose personal interests and needs may be ignored in the interests of the collective.

Many have tried to blend the two, but when it comes right down to it, no collectivist social structure can tolerate the assertion of individual privilege to opt-out of the obligations that collectivism necessarily imposes for long because collectivism is not the natural state of human beings, it is a foreign construct. All humans strive to be individuals who are free to make choices about their lives and property and how, and by whom their lives and property may be justly disposed of. This is as true of socialists as it is Libertarians. Collectivism imposes collectivist ideals and behaviors on individuals without their consent, which is an unnatural thing that to one degree or another every human being bridles at.

While some "socialism-lite" societies may gently wield the fundamental authorities of collectivism, that can only persist so long as the economy is strong and there is sufficient surplus of the resources needed for a satisfactory life, as in, say, Sweden at the moment. But when there is a deficit of those resources human nature always reasserts itself as individual cease to be cooperative ants in the hive and quite suddenly revert to normal human behavior, which is for the individual to use whatever force is required to seek out, acquire and maintain exclusive possession and use of the resources that individual deems necessary to preservation of itself and its progeny.

This is basic human nature and has been unchanged for millions of years. When the crops fail and people begin to starve, each person turns to their own survival and the survival of their progeny, and collectivism goes straight out the window except when it is brutally enforced.

This is why I say that socialism works just fine until the OPM runs out. As in Sweden, with a surplus of natural resources to fund the collectivist operations of government that doesn't require the government to pick and choose who will get fed and who won't, life is good. Capitalism can be permitted to flourish because rationing is not needed. But the minute the market collapses and the OPM starts to run out, a collectivist government must necessarily look to protecting the collective, not the individual, whereas the individual will always choose to protect himself and his progeny when presented with that polar decision. And when individuals in a collectivist society stop behaving like ants and start behaving like human beings, the only course of action for the government of such a society is to excise those individuals who demonstrate individualism, and to do so brutally and openly as a warning to the remaining ants that if they stick their heads up above the crowd, it will be lopped off without hesitation. This is true because only by maintaining absolute control of the proletariat can the government succeed in allocating scarce resources so as to prop up its own power and authority (usually by favoring the elite I must add), which is being threatened by dissatisfaction of the populace because the collectivist government can no longer provide what it promised to provide in return for obedience to the collective.

And that's how socialism ALWAYS fails...and why.

[DaveDodo007]

That, of course, is your political opinion - it isn't the holy truth about politics...

Your particular set of ideas have to fight it out in the political marketplace of elections. If enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, well done, you'll elect candidates to your liking.

If not, suck it up, princess...

Not sure if this was aimed at me but the tories won the last election in my country and this was before the SJW and (third wave) feminism leaked into the mainstream. Corbyn has guaranteed a decade of tory rule so what I'm suppose to suck up apart from victory is anyone's guess. Even I'm concerned about the extreme austerity measures my party is making but without a credible opposition what is to be done. The labour party is now more interested in left wing purity aka identity politics than protecting their supporters from tory policies. I suppose I like a good little princess should suck that up.

[JimC]

That, of course, is your political opinion - it isn't the holy truth about politics...

Your particular set of ideas have to fight it out in the political marketplace of elections. If enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, well done, you'll elect candidates to your liking.

If not, suck it up, princess...

Not sure if this was aimed at me but the tories won the last election in my country and this was before the SJW and (third wave) feminism leaked into the mainstream. Corbyn has guaranteed a decade of tory rule so what I'm suppose to suck up apart from victory is anyone's guess. Even I'm concerned about the extreme austerity measures my party is making but without a credible opposition what is to be done. The labour party is now more interested in left wing purity aka identity politics than protecting their supporters from tory policies. I suppose I like a good little princess should suck that up.

Aimed at Seth originally, but it applies universally in modern democracies. rEv and I have to put up with our shitty Liberal Party running the joint for the moment (and given the current ALP leader, probably for a long time into the future), and Seth will have to put up with another 4 years (at least) of Democrat rule after the next US election...

[DaveDodo007]

That, of course, is your political opinion - it isn't the holy truth about politics...

Your particular set of ideas have to fight it out in the political marketplace of elections. If enough of your fellow citizens agree with you, well done, you'll elect candidates to your liking.

If not, suck it up, princess...

Not sure if this was aimed at me but the tories won the last election in my country and this was before the SJW and (third wave) feminism leaked into the mainstream. Corbyn has guaranteed a decade of tory rule so what I'm suppose to suck up apart from victory is anyone's guess. Even I'm concerned about the extreme austerity measures my party is making but without a credible opposition what is to be done. The labour party is now more interested in left wing purity aka identity politics than protecting their supporters from tory policies. I suppose I like a good little princess should suck that up.

Aimed at Seth originally, but it applies universally in modern democracies. rEv and I have to put up with our shitty Liberal Party running the joint for the moment (and given the current ALP leader, probably for a long time into the future), and Seth will have to put up with another 4 years (at least) of Democrat rule after the next US election...

Fair enough I guess, in a world where the left have gone full loony tunes the republican party can still outdo them for stupidity. I mean on what planet or what thought process gives you women breast feeding her baby means you can grope them this is Islamic grade idiocy. The republican party will have to hire a spin doctor armed with a baseball bat who beats up most of them anyway then tells them if they say anything stupid they will be back. An even worse Clinton in the White House is too horrible to behold, though it looks like what we are getting.

[pErvinalia]

You seem to live in an utter fantasy world.