What WW2 actually was: a war between banking powers

[Estro Felino]

Adam Smith (who was a moral philosopher): The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition...is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.

Nobody prevents people from doing anything. As long as their desires are in line with the common good. I mean...
It's like the vassal who dreams to own all the lands of the kingdom. And the other vassals will be left with nothing.
I think Smith elegantly meant: "I want to empower men to feel entitled to take whatever they want, and not to feel guilty about it"

Better to start with the idea that both see their ideology as being ethical and contributing to the greater good of all people rather than painting one as noble and pure and the other as selfish and mean spirited.

Both were wrong. I am sorry. The Russian guy wants to undo the individualistic freedom and the freedom to live; the British one radicalizes the individualistic freedom by pushing people to be selfish and live meaningless lives.

Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”

Trotsky was not a Christian. Enough said.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not real powerful then are they. Not that they'd have to go overseas to shut down an internet forum.

I didn't do what Assange did.
I am no journalist.
I didn't expose a truth concerning secret services.
So these élites couldn't care less about me.

 

[John53]

I didn't do what Assange did.
I am no journalist.
I didn't expose a truth concerning secret services.
So these élites couldn't care less about me.

You're exposing them. If any of this nonsense were true you wouldn't get away with it.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're exposing them. If any of this nonsense were true you wouldn't get away with it.

I don't fear them because I don't fear death.
They probably do...
it deals with mummies with both feet in the grave...and God's judgment awaits them.

 

[John53]

I don't fear them because I don't fear death.
They probably do...
it deals with mummies with both feet in the grave...and God's judgment awaits them.

So what, none of that has anything to do with what I posted.

If this group are as powerful as you claim you would have been shut down in a heartbeat. Your claims in my opinion are nothing more than conspiracy theory nonsense with not a shred of evidence.

 

[Estro Felino]

So what, none of that has anything to do with what I posted.

If this group are as powerful as you claim you would have been shut down in a heartbeat. Your claims in my opinion are nothing more than conspiracy theory nonsense with not a shred of evidence.

I said nothing new.
This story has been exposed by countless historians, writers, philologist. For decades.
I can also quote a successful writer and Hebrew scholar.

 

[John53]

I said nothing new.
This story has been exposed by countless historians, writers, philologist. For decades.
I can also quote a successful writer and Hebrew scholar.

More evidence it's nonsense. Any group powerful enough to orchestrate the holocaust would soon silence anyone who tried to expose them.

 

[Estro Felino]

More evidence it's nonsense. Any group powerful enough to orchestrate the holocaust would soon silence anyone who tried to expose them.

They are not alive.
They are all dead.
And not certainly in Heaven.

 

[John53]

They are not alive.
They are all dead.
And not certainly in Heaven.

So they got together to start WW2 then dissolved without leaving a legacy to carry on? Your tale is becoming more ridiculous as you add to it.

 

[Estro Felino]

So they got together to start WW2 then dissolved without leaving a legacy to carry on? Your tale is becoming more ridiculous as you add to it.

I am not supposed to convince anybody.
I respect your point.

 

[Stevicus]

Cherry picking quotes is easy

Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”

Adam Smith (who was a moral philosopher): The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition...is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.


Better to start with the idea that both see their ideology as being ethical and contributing to the greater good of all people rather than painting one as noble and pure and the other as selfish and mean spirited.

I agree, although I think examining the rhetoric put forth by leading ideologues would at least illustrate the motives and values. Very often, these discussions can be bogged down by criticisms of governments/parties/political systems which don't practice what they preach. But what if they do practice what they preach, and what is it they're actually preaching?

We know what the Nazis stood for, not just through their actions, but also through their words.

We know what the Confederacy stood for, through their words as well.

We also know that socialist revolutionaries killed tsarist and other bourgeois authoritarians for the greater good, so Trotsky's quote doesn't appear to be in contrast with that. It's not much different than General Sherman proclaiming "war is hell," although such quotes only refer to the intensity of one's beliefs, not the content of those beliefs.

The difference is that socialists killed out of revenge over past oppression, yet capitalists were the initiators of said oppression - and for no other reason than pure, unmitigated greed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The difference is that socialists killed out of revenge over past oppression, yet capitalists were the initiators of said oppression - and for no other reason than pure, unmitigated greed.

That is essentially why any of us know who Che Guevara was.

 

[Augustus]

I agree, although I think examining the rhetoric put forth by leading ideologues would at least illustrate the motives and values. Very often, these discussions can be bogged down by criticisms of governments/parties/political systems which don't practice what they preach. But what if they do practice what they preach, and what is it they're actually preaching?

We know what the Nazis stood for, not just through their actions, but also through their words.

We know what the Confederacy stood for, through their words as well.

We also know that socialist revolutionaries killed tsarist and other bourgeois authoritarians for the greater good, so Trotsky's quote doesn't appear to be in contrast with that. It's not much different than General Sherman proclaiming "war is hell," although such quotes only refer to the intensity of one's beliefs, not the content of those beliefs.

The difference is that socialists killed out of revenge over past oppression, yet capitalists were the initiators of said oppression - and for no other reason than pure, unmitigated greed.

Trotsky is arguing that any amount of death is acceptable in the cause of utopian revolution. His words were matched by their actions.

Socialists killed for revenge, for lust of power, for greed and all the other things human kill for. Marxism in all its forms is one of the mist violent and oppressive ideologies in history based on reality, not theory. Most victims were the oppressed not the oppressors.

Painting capitalists as being about “pure unmitigated greed” is just to be wilfully blind to history.

Many certainly have been, but many socialists were awful and oppressive too. Most European capitalist countries produced higher standards of living for the poorest than the communist ones did.

My side good, other side bad is just silly.

People can genuinely disagree on which approach is best and most moral.

 

[Stevicus]

Trotsky is arguing that any amount of death is acceptable in the cause of utopian revolution. His words were matched by their actions.

Socialists killed for revenge, for lust of power, for greed and all the other things human kill for. Marxism in all its forms is one of the mist violent and oppressive ideologies in history based on reality, not theory. Most victims were the oppressed not the oppressors.

Painting capitalists as being about “pure unmitigated greed” is just to be wilfully blind to history.

Many certainly have been, but many socialists were awful and oppressive too. Most European capitalist countries produced higher standards of living for the poorest than the communist ones did.

My side good, other side bad is just silly.

People can genuinely disagree on which approach is best and most moral.

It's not "my side good, other side bad." Quite the opposite, it's recognizing that what you describe as "reality" does not happen in a vacuum or according to theory.

So, in an effort to examine the causes and effects, I consider it a fair question, when asking about the conditions and circumstances of how things turn out in a given society: Did things turn out the way they intended for them to turn out, based on their stated ideals and principles? Intention and motivation are important considerations.

What may actually be truly silly in all of this is in arguing over abstract economic theories and associating it with historical events and circumstances which are not relevant to any contemporary discussion on these issues.

What's even sillier is that there is a common trend where, anytime someone proposes something like helping the poor, finding homes for the homeless, providing healthcare coverage, improving education, etc., there's always this rhetorical capitalist "shield" which comes up, where they decry socialism, "free stuff," and usually end up speaking of gulags, North Korea, Pol Pot, and so on. Just because some people think that no one should have live on the streets in the wealthiest country in the world with that high standard of living you speak of.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's even sillier is that there is a common trend where, anytime someone proposes something like helping the poor, finding homes for the homeless, providing healthcare coverage, improving education, etc., there's always this rhetorical capitalist "shield" which comes up, where they decry socialism....

You always tout your "nuance" regarding socialism.
But it evaporates when criticizing capitalism.
Private ownership of the means of production
doesn't preclude social services either voluntary
or provided via taxation.

 

[Stevicus]

You always tout your "nuance" regarding socialism.
But it evaporates when criticizing capitalism.
Private ownership of the means of production
doesn't preclude social services either voluntary
or provided via taxation.

I agree that it shouldn't, in theory, but I was commenting on how the discussion usually proceeds in public discourse. Why do you think the right-wing commonly refers to the Democrats as "socialists"? If the two major factions remain intransigently locked in gridlock and disagreement, then we might as well become socialist. Not because it's not possible to implement a system of beneficial social services for the people, but because the capitalists have too many stubborn fools among their ranks. They insist on fighting a in burning house, though the current political divide is capitalist vs. capitalist.

 

[Augustus]

t's not "my side good, other side bad." Quite the opposite, it's recognizing that what you describe as "reality" does not happen in a vacuum or according to theory

I find what you say here to be incongruent with your previous post where socialist oppressions was really nothing more than revenge against oppressors, and capitalists weee just nasty and rapacious vermin.

That doesn’t smack of fair mindedness to me.

What may actually be truly silly in all of this is in arguing over abstract economic theories and associating it with historical events and circumstances which are not relevant to any contemporary discussion on these issues.

I think the history of economic systems is highly relevant to good faith present debates.

What's even sillier is that there is a common trend where, anytime someone proposes something like helping the poor, finding homes for the homeless, providing healthcare coverage, improving education, etc., there's always this rhetorical capitalist "shield" which comes up, where they decry socialism, "free stuff," and usually end up speaking of gulags, North Korea, Pol Pot, and so on. Just because some people think that no one should have live on the streets in the wealthiest country in the world with that high standard of living you speak of.

Seems like you equate capitalism with the worst of American Republicans.

These quirks have little resonance for us non-Americans.

America is not the world, and American partisan politics is not the universal frame of reference for these kind of discussions.

Countries with universal healthcare don’t see universal healthcare as being about Pol Pot or the gulags.

 

[Stevicus]

I find what you say here to be incongruent with your previous post where socialist oppressions was really nothing more than revenge against oppressors, and capitalists weee just nasty and rapacious vermin.

That doesn’t smack of fair mindedness to me.

Neither does your characterization here seem very fair.

I think the history of economic systems is highly relevant to good faith present debates.

I don't think it's good faith whenever capitalists try to present themselves as anything other than being in business to make money. Everything they say and do is predicated on the desire to make as much money as they can, however they can. They're not interested in the "good of society" or anything like that. The past 40+ years of U.S. politics is proof of this.

Seems like you equate capitalism with the worst of American Republicans.

These quirks have little resonance for us non-Americans.

America is not the world, and American partisan politics is not the universal frame of reference for these kind of discussions.

Countries with universal healthcare don’t see universal healthcare as being about Pol Pot or the gulags.

I'm sorry, America is where I live, so I look at politics from a more domestic point of view. Though I am perfectly aware that America is not the world, but so what?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that it shouldn't, in theory, but I was commenting on how the discussion usually proceeds in public discourse.

That's wrong too in my experience.
People who favor capitalism most often want
things like public roads, education, & health care.
Perhaps your memory is selective?

Why do you think the right-wing commonly refers to the Democrats as "socialists"?

To them the word is a weapon.
But this common criticism doesn't mean
that all or even most oppose social programs.
The disagreements I see are in reality about
the extent / expansion of government programs.

Opposition to something is often insincere,
but useful to manipulate voters, eg, Obama's
opposition to the 2 wars. After the election,
he no longer had to proffer that view.

If the two major factions remain intransigently locked in gridlock and disagreement, then we might as well become socialist. Not because it's not possible to implement a system of beneficial social services for the people, but because the capitalists have too many stubborn fools among their ranks.

Just like Democrats / socialists, eh.
It takes more than 1 side to disagree.

They insist on fighting a in burning house, though the current political divide is capitalist vs. capitalist.

In a capitalist country, capitalists will disagree.
In a socialist country, socialists will disagree...but
not too much, lest they be sent to the gulag.

 

[Augustus]

don't think it's good faith whenever capitalists try to present themselves as anything other than being in business to make money. Everything they say and do is predicated on the desire to make as much money as they can, however they can.

Making money does not mean stealing and oppression, and the rest of what you say is clearly not true overall.

It’s no more true than talking of socialists as just being Soviet style commies.

I'm sorry, America is where I live, so I look at politics from a more domestic point of view. Though I am perfectly aware that America is not the world, but so what?

Then you can’t complain when people just address socialism from a Soviet point of view.

What’s good for the goose…

If you make no attempt to treat the other side with any degree of fairness, how can you complain about others who do likewise?