Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the neoliberal vision of the future

This cartoon gives you zero pause for afterthought? It doesn't make you wonder ever so slightly if Hitler may have been a socialist as he claimed he was all along? I mean why did Hitler talk about capitalism as "Jewish economics"? Why did he target the Jew so much and not, say, the French? Was anti-semitism in Europe in the 19th and 20th century just racism, or was it anti-capitalism? Even Karl Marx (an upper middle class Jew) wrote on "the Jewish problem" and he identified Jewish culture with that of capitalism. Of course, Marx's comments were not original. They were prevalent in the discourse at the time in fascist militaristic Prussia.

Ah, my prediction in post #498 came true. You couldn't resist mentioning Marx's "The Jewish Question" (question being the correct translation, by the way, unless you're someone who gets their knowledge of Marx from Francis parker Yockey and his ideological descendents).

Such a shame you've divorced his writing from the context in which it was written.

Anyone would think you're actively trying to reveal yourself as a dolt.
 
Why are some people rich and others poor?

There's not a simple one-liner answer to that question. Generally speaking the less capitalist a country is the greater the probability of being poor. That is the most prominent factor determining wealth.


Also, if you ever have children, will you bring them up to believe that selfishness is good and altruism is bad?

Yes, I will teach my children that Hitler was a self-professed altruist and that the Nazi slogan was "the common good before self-interest" and that the Nazis preached self-sacrifice (altruism):


WW2_Hitler_Nazi_Poster_-_Winter_Aid_-_Sacrifice_Cientizta.jpg



The poster says: "don't donate, sacrifice!"


I will teach my children that people who hold self-sacrifice as their highest moral ideal will not hesitate to "help" other people to sacrifice themselves for "the common good." In the mild cases they will just impose taxes on them to "help" them be altruistic. In the more extreme cases they will murder millions of people in the name of sacrifice for the common good. When Hitler sent his letter to President Roosevelt it was the willingness to sacrifice for the common good that he commended.

I will also teach my children that the only way to lead a happy life is to be human, i.e. to be rational and to act in one's self-interest. People who continuously learn to only profit from their actions build up a surplus in their lives. They become mild, gentle and benevolent people while at the same time highly successful in their own lives. This stands in stark contrast to the altruist who throws all his surplus away and becomes a bitter and malevolent man.


What kind of people do you think those children will grow up to be?

About as far away from a nazi or a communist as possible.
 
I see on the left of that picture that a belt of trees and scrub will run along one side of this settlement. They do not appear to be enclosed - suggesting some element of collective ownership or common land, then?

Which would be the only possible way such an undertaking could succeed. In harsh environments, people pull together. They have to – pool resources and fight for your survival as a group; as individuals, you surely perish.
 
Ah, my prediction in post #498 came true. You couldn't resist mentioning Marx's "The Jewish Question" (question being the correct translation, by the way, unless you're someone who gets their knowledge of Marx from Francis parker Yockey and his ideological descendents).

Such a shame you've divorced his writing from the context in which it was written.

Anyone would think you're actively trying to reveal yourself as a dolt.

These types will always resort to smears to get their own way in a debate. It symptomatic of their philosophical bankruptcy and intellectual feebleness. They tend to see those of us who don't share their views as being ignorant of the facts. But their 'facts' have either been cherry-picked or decontextualised to serve whatever narrative happens to be deployed for debate.
 
Problem is, there is a germ of truth in what Onan says. FDR was corporatist and he did something similar-ish to Peron after him in that he suppressed/co-opted real socialists and socialist labour movements.

It's an idiotic comparison, but then in Onan's world, govt activity = socialism, even if that activity is directed towards supporting private business.

It's odd the way FDR is such a hate-figure to these people, though. Tell me, Onan, what would have been your reaction to the depression?

I will answer once you start to behave like a decent human being.
 
Here is the difference between us: YOU think that NOT helping someone who despises you and actively works to enslave you is sociopathy, whereas using physical force against innocent peaceful people and calling them names is NOT sociopathy. Only someone who abides by the inverted morality of altruism can possible think anything like that.

No-one as used physical force against you.

Were you in front of me, spouting your pretentious but intellectually insubstantive ideology I still wouldn't use physical force against you.

Why? Because you're a coward, and soiling my hands on cowards isn't something I indulge in.

By the way, grasshopper, anyone who assumes that altruism is a form of "Inverted morality", is probably closer to sociopathy than they are distant from it.
 
These types will always resort to smears to get their own way in a debate. It symptomatic of their philosophical bankruptcy and intellectual feebleness. They tend to see those of us who don't share their views as being ignorant of the facts. But their 'facts' have either been cherry-picked or decontextualised to serve whatever narrative happens to be deployed for debate.

Single best post on this thread since it applies to nearly everyone on it!

:D
 
the speech. To understand what an Ayn Rand Asshole is, you have to study that sixty-page Speech Rand stuffed in John Galt's mouth at the end of Atlas. She spent two years writing it. Her publisher asked for cuts. "Would you cut the Bible?" she snapped. Thing is, Rand was right. (And not just because a Library of Congress/Book-of-the-Month Club survey conducted thirty-four years after its publication ranked Atlas Shrugged the second most influential book ever written after, you guessed it, the Bible.) She viewed the Speech as the keystone to…everything. And to a degree that still confounds mainstream academic philosophers (most of whom find Rand's work laughable), that is how it has been taken. Which means there are three things that all Americans must know about it.

The first is that the Speech serves as both the foundation and finished edifice of Objectivism, Rand's utopian vision of an entrepreneurial elite freed at last from any obligation, financial or moral, to the hangers-on of the world; free from religious hokum and from having to feign concern for the wee; free to exercise the "virtue of selfishness" in pursuit of money and glory. (The novel ends with Galt atop a mountain, raising a hand to trace the sacred sign of the dollar over the desolate earth that he and his A-Team are at last ready to return to and revive.) Is greed good, you ask? My friend, in the Objectivist world of Ayn Rand, whose funeral featured a six-foot dollar sign made out of flowers next to the open casket, greed is God.

The second thing is that it is helpful to conjure Keanu Reeves in his What would you DO? proclamatory mode when reading it (silently or aloud):
Morality, to you, is a phantom scarecrow made of duty, of boredom, of punishment, of pain…and pleasure, to you, is a liquor-soggy brain, a mindless slut, the stupor of a moron who stakes his cash on some animal's race, since pleasure cannot be moral.

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead?printable=true
 
You said initially that it boded welll for the future of Africa. You said this despite (as you now admit) not knowing the project and 'knowing nothing about who has been displaced or not'. But then you seem very keen on shouting the odds about things you know little or nothing about.

Ok let me elaborate exactly what I think is boding very well for the future of Africa: many leaders across Africa are discovering the free market. For 50 years Europe has destroyed Africa with socialist ideas and aid, and now there is a sign that they are finally getting tired and want to try something new: capitalism. If this is really true (of which the Lekki Free Trade Zone is but one symptom) then this indeed bodes extremely well for Africa. If Africa actually embraces capitalism after decades of socialism then we could see poverty in Africa disappear extremely fast.

Now, will there be dodgy politics on the way? Politics and dodgy are almost synonyms in large parts of Africa, so the process will not be a smooth ride, but the attitude and insights shown by this new generation of Africans bodes very well.
 
Ok let me elaborate exactly what I think is boding very well for the future of Africa: many leaders across Africa are discovering the free market. For 50 years Europe has destroyed Africa with socialist ideas and aid, and now there is a sign that they are finally getting tired and want to try something new: capitalism. If this is really true (of which the Lekki Free Trade Zone is but one symptom) then this indeed bodes extremely well for Africa. If Africa actually embraces capitalism after decades of socialism then we could see poverty in Africa disappear extremely fast.

Now, will there be dodgy politics on the way? Politics and dodgy are almost synonyms in large parts of Africa, so the process will not be a smooth ride, but the attitude and insights shown by this new generation of Africans bodes very well.

No, they haven't "discovered" free trade. It's been imposed on them in return for aid and IMF loans. The only thing that "destroyed" African countries was the rush by European countries to exploit the continent's resources. You still haven't dealt with my point about the Congo Free State. Is that because it doesn't fit in with your narrative? Je pense ça.
 
Maybe he's just thinking of some other little French socialist group, not the main one. There's plenty of tiny splinters of socialism and some of them were probably judeophobic in post-Dreyfuss France.



There have been lots of anti-semitic socialists, especially in those parts of the world where anti-semitism is rife. It proves nothing.
 
Ok let me elaborate exactly what I think is boding very well for the future of Africa: many leaders across Africa are discovering the free market. For 50 years Europe has destroyed Africa with socialist ideas and aid, and now there is a sign that they are finally getting tired and want to try something new: capitalism. If this is really true (of which the Lekki Free Trade Zone is but one symptom) then this indeed bodes extremely well for Africa. If Africa actually embraces capitalism after decades of socialism then we could see poverty in Africa disappear extremely fast.

Now, will there be dodgy politics on the way? Politics and dodgy are almost synonyms in large parts of Africa, so the process will not be a smooth ride, but the attitude and insights shown by this new generation of Africans bodes very well.

What was the author and title of the last book, peer-reviewed paper, or journalistic article on Africa that you read?
 
No-one as used physical force against you.

You are a socialist and you are of the opinion that I don't own my own life or the products of my own life, so you find it perfectly legitimate to threaten me with jail if I don't abide to your wishes. Men with guns throwing people in jail is certainly physical force.

ere you in front of me, spouting your pretentious but intellectually insubstantive ideology I still wouldn't use physical force against you.

You just get goons with guns to do your bidding.


By the way, grasshopper, anyone who assumes that altruism is a form of "Inverted morality", is probably closer to sociopathy than they are distant from it.

Well, Hitler was a self-professed altruist. He was proud to sacrifice his people for "the common good." So you're on the same moral side as Hitler, and I am glad and proud that I don't share your morality.

Remember: altruism does NOT mean benevolence. If that were true a baker would be considered altruistic for doing the good deed of baking bread for other people, an act which they profit from. However, the baker is considered an egoist because he PROFITS from his actions. So benevolence is irrelevant to altruism. The most important thing to an altruist is NOT that the recipient benefits (if so he would be an adherent of capitalism), but that the one doing the good deeds SUFFER. Suffering and sacrifice is the essence of altruism, and I want none of it. You and Hitler can have that morality all to yourselves.
 
Do you think Onan is familiar with the Dreyfus Affair?

Only insofar as he could deconstruct and decontextualise elements of it to support his ideology.

And, of course, Esterhazy was obviously a libertarian who was victimised by Jewish socialist capitalist humanists.
 
Problem is, there is a germ of truth in what Onan says. FDR was corporatist and he did something similar-ish to Peron after him in that he suppressed/co-opted real socialists and socialist labour movements.

It's an idiotic comparison, but then in Onan's world, govt activity = socialism, even if that activity is directed towards supporting private business.

It's odd the way FDR is such a hate-figure to these people, though. Tell me, Onan, what would have been your reaction to the depression?

I'm sure you're familiar with the old saw that "the big lie always contains a germ of truth", fella!
 
The most important thing to an altruist is NOT that the recipient benefits (if so he would be an adherent of capitalism), but that the one doing the good deeds SUFFER.

Where the hell did you get that from? Altruism is simply acting for the benefit of others where there is no direct tangible benefit to yourself. Altruism usually makes people feel good.

You should try it.
 
Would you like to substantiate that with names and quotes?

Bad like, Onan, Kizmet's come to defend you. Now you're really in trouble.

Don't be thick. He's a preacher.... he doesn't need defending. He's barely listening to a thing you say. I just think it's funny that most of you lot are doing exactly the same.
:)
 
Excuse me!?!? Henry Ford an enthusiast of capitalism!?!?!?!? Henry Ford was a great industrialist but politically he was an outspoken admirer of Fascism, including giving money contributions to the Nazi-party. In America Ford was at the time a well-known progressive and adherent of "welfare capitalism." I.e. he was a rightwing socialist.


Loads of capitalists have been fascists. Some fascists have also regarded themselves as socialists. So what? What is any of this supposed to be proving?

Your trouble is that you have one narrow definition of capitalism. This way the many negative outcomes capitalism causes can be disowned. On the other hand you have a the broadest possible definition of socialism so that you can include absolutely everything you dislike under the label.

Do you think you might benefit from a girlfriend?
 
Don't be thick. He's a preacher.... he doesn't need defending. He's barely listening to a thing you say. I just think it's funny that most of you lot are doing exactly the same.
:)

You're not reading very carefully if you think that. Most people are responding directly to what he's saying.
 
You are a socialist and you are of the opinion that I don't own my own life or the products of my own life, so you find it perfectly legitimate to threaten me with jail if I don't abide to your wishes. Men with guns throwing people in jail is certainly physical force.
You must feel like you're threatened with force every day of your life, if that's your definition. The number of 'peaceful' people that you would actually help is, presumably, small.

"A traffic warden was hit by a car and is dying! Call an ambulance."
"Screw her, she doesm't respect my right to not pay fines."
 
Back
Top Bottom