Debate @steeel Billet on the merits of Fascism above all other systems. - If you know a capitalist, communist or socialist on the farms feel free to tag them over here so we can get their input

[Tablet County]

It's pretty clear that by "fascism" OP means that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Starefag]

All economic theory presupposes that the primary purpose of man is production and consumption of material goods. You would not create an economic system if you know that production and consumption is not the primary purpose of man.

Wh--


No.
No we have economic systems to determine the value of services and goods so that they can be exchanged. Eg, Grug have 3 rock. Bung have 1 meat. Bung need 2 rock to get 1 meat. Therefore Bung asks for 2 rocks as that is what he used to kill buffalo.

There's no value being presupposed onto Grug or Bung here, Grug privately owns his rocks, and Bung owns the meat he got from the water buffalo

 

[Tablet County]

Wh--
Ver archivo adjunto 8844188

No.
No we have economic systems to determine the value of services and goods so that they can be exchanged. Eg, Grug have 3 rock. Bung have 1 meat. Bung need 2 rock to get 1 meat. Therefore Bung asks for 2 rocks as that is what he used to kill buffalo.

There's no value being presupposed onto Grug or Bung here, Grug privately owns his rocks, and Bung owns the meat he got from the water buffalo

I get the distinct impression that OP is a bell curved individual.

 

[draggs]

A good system of governence, one that I want, would create children who don't yearn for money, but for spiritual wealth.

it's called political economy not spiritual economy. you aren't even a fascist you're some kind of luddite new age retard o algo. fascism is line go up. socialism is line go up. capitalism is line go up. because line go up is a rough synonym for the standard of living. only capitalism actually sustains line go up though

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I should not have said "capitalist" because I am speaking more broadly at economic ideologies.

Well, that just means the earlier criticism wasn't tied to any specific feature of capitalism in the first place. The label you use changed, but the claims stayed the same.

All economic theory presupposes that the primary purpose of man is production and consumption of material goods. You would not create an economic system if you know that production and consumption is not the primary purpose of man.

How do you justify going from "economic theory deals with production and consumption" to "therefore it presupposes that production and consumption are man's primary purpose"?
Consumption is a necessary condition of staying alive, not just for humans but for any living being. Production is one way of obtaining the means for that consumption without taking them from others by force. A theory that addresses how people secure and use material means is about that domain because it's unavoidable. Treating a necessary condition as if it were an ultimate purpose is a category shift. Addressing how people live is not the same as declaring what they should live for.

For example, say you live in a small village of 600 people, and in this village lives a sniveling little jew who tries to give out predatory loans to people. Your village society believes that usury is evil. The society of the village will, at best, not interact with the jew, and, at worst, completely expel him from the village.

Mixing two different things there. Refusing to associate or trade with someone or excluding them from a voluntary group is one set of actions. Expelling them from a place or executing them is another. The former follows from individuals deciding whom they deal with or not, the latter requires someone deciding that certain beliefs or occupations justify coercive removal or death.
When you say that values are determined by "The Faith" and that those who "cause harm" may be exiled or executed, that raises a question you haven't answered. Whose interpretation of "The Faith", and what rule determines when something counts as "harm"? Consider that things like "companies that harm the nation" are not fixed categories that are governed by a clear and general rule, rather they are labels that depend on interpretation. The outcome of such enforcement depends on whoever has the authority to interpret these labels in each case.

Ultimately, you're not really contrasting between a "materialist" system and a "spiritual" one. Rather, you're contrasting a framework where individuals pursue different ends and others may refuse to cooperate with them, and a framework where some people decide which ends are acceptable and enforce that decision by restricting, expelling, or killing those they don't conform.
You already stated you want the latter and are willing to use violence to maintain it. I'm wondering what constrains that violence. As in, what rule limits who can be targeted and for what reason, in a way that doesn't just reduce to whoever is doing the interpreting at the time. Everything you said so far can be used, without contradiction, to put you to death.

 

[Drip Torch]

Fascism is never fail! Right guyz, right?

 

[Kankichi Ryotsu]

Ngl fascism sounds pretty based.

 

[Starefag]

Fascism is never fail! Right guyz, right?

>Only the strong will survive
>Lose two world wars.

 

[Steel Billet]

Everything you have said is midwitted feel-good nonsense that wears the guise of high minded nobility.

Again, if you're going to just dismiss my points I'm not going to respond.

Do you have proof of this or are you just gesturing vaguely at doomerism?

No, quite the opposite of doomerism. I know that the next generations can be influence to be better.

But there's always a chance that the dude you're putting in a firing squad is innocent.

With modern detective technology this is very close to impossible. The vast majority of violent criminals are also very low IQ and like to boast about their crimes. Keeping such degenerates fed and housed for taxpayer money is cruel to their victims. A child rapist should not get to live on the same earth as people.

And a part of education is critical thinking and questioning of systems.

When you ask a question about the system you get an answer as to why it is the way it is. An educated peoples would understand why the society they live in is structured in such a way.

What if the child decides that wealthy in spirit means having the most money to provide for those around them? What if they don't want to participate in your culture and conculde that in order to be 'spiritually rich' they leave it entirely? You know children do this thing in their teens and 20's where they rebel against the systems of power, and even countries like China have student rebellions, yeah? Is it righteous to shoot young people who reject your ideas?

This actually isn't a universal phenomenon and is a product of outside influence. Teens don't aren't naturally rebelious.

I get the distinct impression that OP is a bell curved individual.

Again, not addressing my argument. My IQ is 2 SD+.

Whose interpretation of "The Faith"

There is only one true Faith, one which continues the line of apostolic succession.

Consumption is a necessary condition of staying alive, not just for humans but for any living being. Production is one way of obtaining the means for that consumption without taking them from others by force. A theory that addresses how people secure and use material means is about that domain because it's unavoidable. Treating a necessary condition as if it were an ultimate purpose is a category shift. Addressing how people live is not the same as declaring what they should live for.

It's very hard to explain this because you have a fundamentally different worldview. While production is nescessary to survive, it is not the ultimate purpose of man. Man's purpose is entirely theological.
My primary claim is that basing an ideology on economic theory is foolish because it is materialist, and therefore everything else in the ideology must also be. A belief must primarily be spiritual.

>Only the strong will survive
>Lose two world wars.

>Can't distinguish between NATSOC and Fascism

Wh--
Ver archivo adjunto 8844188

No.
No we have economic systems to determine the value of services and goods so that they can be exchanged. Eg, Grug have 3 rock. Bung have 1 meat. Bung need 2 rock to get 1 meat. Therefore Bung asks for 2 rocks as that is what he used to kill buffalo.

There's no value being presupposed onto Grug or Bung here, Grug privately owns his rocks, and Bung owns the meat he got from the water buffalo

It's like you don't even read what I write.

I never actually claimed to be a fascist, I just put it as an example of a good ideology.

 

[Slap47]

Facism is an ideology that only arises from retarded desperation and has no long term lifespan unless anchored in something. For most thirdworld shitholes, it's anchored in a population that's too fucking retarded to rise up because of a lack of education.

The last fascist country on Earth may actually be North Korea so it is sustainable with populations that can read.

Intensely nationalistic, unified in purpose, intense autarky, class collaboration written into law, heavily militaristic society.

 

[Carmen The Aids Rabbit]

I mean fascism because I do want to use violence.

No you don't

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It strikes me as odd you're complaining about people dismissing your points while you are still not engaging several of the points I put forth to you, especially the question about what constrains enforcement once people don't line up with your preferred values. You answered two fragments and left the rest hanging.

There is only one true Faith, one which continues the line of apostolic succession.

That just kicks the can down the road. The question was whose interpretation determines what counts as deviation and what counts as harm. Saying there is one true faith does not identify who interprets it in practice or how disagreements are resolved when multiple people claim to represent it and lead to incompatible conclusions. That's important because your earlier examples already include outcomes like exile and execution. Once that's on the table, the difference between "there is one true Faith" and "this is the correct interpretation of it" becomes the difference between who lives and who dies.

It's very hard to explain this because you have a fundamentally different worldview. While production is nescessary to survive, it is not the ultimate purpose of man. Man's purpose is entirely theological.
My primary claim is that basing an ideology on economic theory is foolish because it is materialist, and therefore everything else in the ideology must also be. A belief must primarily be spiritual.

Here you're just restating an earlier claim at a higher level. You're insinuating that, because an ideology is based on economic theory - without specifying which ideology you have in mind and showing that it is, in fact, grounded that way - that ideology must be materialist and therefore everything else in it must also be materialist.
Addressing how people deal with material conditions does not determine what else they believe about purpose, meaning, or theology. A framework can say "this is how people coordinate over scarce resources" without saying "this is the ultimate purpose of man". You are taking a theory about one domain and treating it as if it defines all domains. That's like saying, because medicine studies the body, it presupposes that the purpose of man is bodily maintenance.
Plus, a fundamentally different worldview doesn't answer the structure of the points I raised. The issue is not whether man's ultimate purpose is theological. Even if this assertion is granted, it still does not follow that a system addressing economic coordination imposes a material purpose on people.

I can't help but reiterate the central unanswered question. You said values come from the Faith, you said it's permissible/desirable for people who don't align with those values to be pushed out or killed, and you said you're willing to use violence to maintain that order. What you haven't said is what rule governs that process in a way that does not reduce to whoever happens to be doing the interpreting at the time.
Once disagreement exists, what determines who gets to act, who gets stopped, and under what general rule that is applied across cases?

 

[Steel Billet]

It strikes me as odd you're complaining about people dismissing your points while you are still not engaging several of the points I put forth to you, especially the question about what constrains enforcement once people don't line up with your preferred values. You answered two fragments and left the rest hanging.

Those require more thought.

 

[Tablet County]

Again, if you're going to just dismiss my points I'm not going to respond.

You're responding right now.

Again, not addressing my argument. My IQ is 2 SD+.

Then you should recognize when you're being insulted and not argued at. Also didn't ask.

The last fascist country on Earth may actually be North Korea so it is sustainable with populations that can read.

Intensely nationalistic, unified in purpose, intense autarky, class collaboration written into law, heavily militaristic society.

North Korea only exists because China allows it to. If wiping them off the map wouldn't piss off Big Brother Pooh there wouldn't be just the one Korean war.

 

[Starefag]

Teens don't aren't naturally rebelious.

Ignoring the funny ESL.
yes they are. You can see this in the Greeks. You can see it in the *ming dynasty*
You can see it in the mongol fucking empire. Youth want to define themselves, and often do this by railing against an establishment in some way.

North Korea so it is sustainable with populations that can read.

Not really, it has an insane amount of famines happening regularly.

>Can't distinguish between NATSOC and Fascism

Explain the differences that make them so distinct, then.

 

[Tablet County]

That just kicks the can down the road. The question was whose interpretation determines what counts as deviation and what counts as harm. Saying there is one true faith does not identify who interprets it in practice or how disagreements are resolved when multiple people claim to represent it and lead to incompatible conclusions. That's important because your earlier examples already include outcomes like exile and execution. Once that's on the table, the difference between "there is one true Faith" and "this is the correct interpretation of it" becomes the difference between who lives and who dies.

This is the general issue with people like OP, they will always assume the best and most perfect interpretation of their own beliefs and will always assume the worst and most flawed interpretation of opposing beliefs. When somebody says "fascism is the best form of society because it reinforces spirituality" they envision their dream society as a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit in together flawlessly, not considering that their "pieces" are individuals with their own motives, personalities, and interpretations of reality.

People in general, even alleged geniuses like OP never seem to examine their own biases. They might say that they do but it's really just a token acknowledgement that they have a bias toward their own beliefs rather than recognizing the potential blinders that their biases unconsciously put on them. They get so caught up in grandiose ideas and snappy phrases and bellyfeels that they never stop to wonder why a simple slogan or bible quote has terminated their thought processes. And of course they don't, because neutralizing cognitive dissonance feels doubleplus good. The worst of these people will conclude that critical thinking is some kind of bugbear, possibly invented by the Frankfurt School so that God-fearing Aryan Chvds would doubt themselves, as opposed to the entire thing that separates our species from creatures that take shits out in the open and eat crap off the ground.

 

[Starefag]

When you ask a question about the system you get an answer as to why it is the way it is. An educated peoples would understand why the society they live in is structured in such a way.

But what if they reject it? Critical thought necessitates the possibility of rejection. Should you not educate based off critical thought, you wind up with half-wit retards that can barely pull the levers of the first world nation
So choose, stability, or quality of life

With modern detective technology this is very close to impossible

Ask me how I know you know jack fucking dick about forensics. Bite mark analysis, cameras, DNA swabbing, even your fucking fingerprints all have multiple points of failure. Not even accounting for corruption or evidence tampering. How do you prevent that?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

This is the general issue with people like OP, they will always assume the best and most perfect interpretation of their own beliefs and will always assume the worst and most flawed interpretation of opposing beliefs. When somebody says "fascism is the best form of society because it reinforces spirituality" they envision their dream society as a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit in together flawlessly, not considering that their "pieces" are individuals with their own motives, personalities, and interpretations of reality.

People in general, even alleged geniuses like OP never seem to examine their own biases. They might say that they do but it's really just a token acknowledgement that they have a bias toward their own beliefs rather than recognizing the potential blinders that their biases unconsciously put on them. They get so caught up in grandiose ideas and snappy phrases and bellyfeels that they never stop to wonder why a simple slogan or bible quote has terminated their thought processes. And of course they don't, because neutralizing cognitive dissonance feels doubleplus good. The worst of these people will conclude that critical thinking is some kind of bugbear, possibly invented by the Frankfurt School so that God-fearing Aryan Chvds would doubt themselves, as opposed to the entire thing that separates our species from creatures that take shits out in the open and eat crap off the ground.

In my opinion the problem isn't assuming good or bad intentions or psychological traits. Rather, it's a structural problem. Once interpretation and enforcement are undefined, the outcome depends on whoever is applying them at the time. The only two options are to accept that outcomes are determined by discretionary judgment rather than a general rule, or to provide such a rule. If it's the former, then there is no principled constraint on the use of violence, including against the person who's proposing the system. Otherwise, the question still needs to be answered.

 

[Halbschwanz]

Cumbersome bureaucracy is a feature of fascism, not a bug. Even as someone who doesn't see it as some sort of ultimate evil, bean counting faggots trying to micro human existence is a large part of why we're having problems now. Or to paraphrase Der Führer, it is not in the national character of Americans to like infinite paperwork.

 

[Tablet County]

Not even accounting for corruption or evidence tampering. How do you prevent that?

I'll answer this for you, because I think I have a good grasp of the mind of the midwitted spiritualist. In a Christian society that adheres closely to Christian ethics, there would be no corruption, as following the Christ means that you would never do something morally wrong, therefore, corrupt institutions wouldn't exist and no individual would have the desire to tamper with evidence because Jesus wouldn't.
"We are all fallen" except when we aren't.