: D: : Who did he execute? The Socialists, trade unionists, anarchists, communists.: JJ: Yes, and Crips executed Bloods. This doesn't mean the Bloods possessed redeeming qualities.
: Qx: You're using a really dumb analogy here. Dingo is talking about a political struggle that resulted in a pruge and you're trying to use American crime scenery as a parallel.
Yes. As the politically more powerful always eliminate the less powerful in group utility maximizing confrontations.
: D: : the nazi party was insignificant before this, the "Socialistic", read state collectivists, elements where executed as traitors to the nazi cause.
: JJ: Hmmm, you are beginning to trail off.
: Qx: No he's not. You should start reading about Otto and Gregor Strasser before you claim that he is trailing off.
I'm aware of the Night of the Long Knives. The problem is utiliarian collectivism (Nazism) is politically more powerful than egalitarian collectivism (Communists). This is why Nazism defeats Communism in direct political confrontation. My original post refered to an earlier one in which I showed that Stalin will always defeat Trotsky. Lark's arguing an empirical observation I agree with whole heartedly. He then proceeds to advocate recreating, today, the conditions that allowed this to happen.
: D: : This involved executing a number of his close associates but it didnt matter to hitler.
: JJ: What is "it" referring to. If you mean killing his own friends I fail to see how this advances your argument.
: Qx: Yes, it does advance his argument. Even if Roehm, the Strasser brothers and other members of the SA were friends they were also politically expedient. Hitler wanted the full co-operation of German industrialists so he opened up the SS to members of nobility and the SS thus grew in numbers as the SA waned in power to virtually nil after the Night of the Long Knives.
We don't disagree. Again, utilitarian collectivism always defeats egalitarian collectivism. No value judgements here. Pure observation of verifiable and predictable phenomena.
: D: : Incidentally most Nazi's will argue with you they arent socialists and favour the economic system the pusedo-libertarians faovur only with a militarised state to ensure compliance form the proletariat.
: JJ: No, you're right. Nazi's (generally)are utilitarian nationalists who seek to maximize their political advantage by dividing up the populace into those they can use and those they must forcefully subjugate.
: Qx: So far so good on this one. Let's see how the rest goes.
: Do you think I'd be so crazy as to destroy German heavy industry? Those producers worked their way to the top by their own merits, and, because of this process of selection, which proves that they are an elite, they have a right to lead! --Adolf Hitler to Otto Strasser,
: October 1930. Quoted in Helmut Heiber, Adolf Hitler, (Berlin, 1960) p68
Exactly what a leader would say in this situation as a rational utility maximizer.
: JJ: Private property is vastly more productive than public property (this is an empirically proven fact)and, thus, provides more utility.
: Qx: Now that is typical neo-classical economics (feigned capitalism) at it's most apologetic. You're simply spouting a social construct
Construct? Construction requires an act of will by a specific purposeful mind. Generate, maybe? Definitely not construction, as only individuals possess a will and a purposeful mind. Evolve from, though, is probably the most accurate.
And, additionally, if I'm spouting a social construct so are you. In fact, under this assumption, we were destined to have this conversation. We had no choice in the matter.
: and so it would be best if you could provide evidence for this aggrandizement.
Mmm. I actually gave Lark precise empirical studies earlier and he replied that he 'didn't believe the little men in the white lab coats.' Maybe you're different.
National economic indicators show a direct relation between GDP growth and lower regulation coupled with more property delineation (see Cato Journal, Winter 1999). Yes, Cato is a libertarian journal so I suppose you dismiss it out of hand. If, indeed you do, why did you ask for empirical evidence given that any support I produced would automatically classify it as a tool of oppression?
: Qx: That is really dependent on the social conditions at the time.
And the social conditions at the time are based on what? Of course you'll argue that it based on the oppression of the capitalists. So the capitalists are a condition of society, and society is a condition of the capitalists. This is what's known as a tautological argument. It's completely self-contained and can neither be proven nor disproven as it says absolutely nothing of predictive qualities.
: D:: While Nazis are consolidating their rule private industry is an attractive tool for mollifying the general public.
: Qx: As soon as they achieve power Nazis begin setting up quasi-feudal arrangements, with the "capitalists" acting as dukes and barons administering their estates. Surprisingly, if Nazis overcome their propensity towards aggression they settle down and eventually lead quite productive regimes. See Spain and Chile.
: Qx: Uh-oh
Again, contrast this with USSR, Cuba, etc. I'm not promoting Pinochet. I'm just saying that fascism is more utilitarian than socialism. None of this really seems to address the main points I am concerned with here in this string. I'm merely observing that fascism is politically more powerful than socialism.
: JJ: Feudal economic arrangements are better at producing the greatest good for the greatest number better than completely collectivized arrangements. The main problem seems to be the odious propensity towards ethnic and racial hatred.
: Qx: Time to read about true libertarian eonomics and not the Milton Freidman swill.
Here's a snippet to show I visited it: "as the economic science, the dialectical philosophy, the sociology of class struggle and its solution, the materialist interpretation of history and the State form"
These guys are pure Hegelians and much of what they state is simply opinion, but I'll examine. They view individuals not even as possessing individuality. The view "every person is a construct of their society" denies that people exist as anything "besides abstracts of society". Hegel and Compte directly said this.
If this is true than I am merely saying these words as a result of "society's" putting them in me. You are arguing with me for the same reason. In fact, we are not even arguing with each other at all, though. The universal laws are working themselves out in our actions, and we are merely their pawns; capitalist, proletarians, all of us. Your thoughts are not yours. My thoughts are not mine. They are solely a product of that perfect clock that is the physical universe.
Hegel and Marx, as physical or idealist, determinists would firmly state that what is real is rational, and what is rational is real. Upon, realizing this, we no longer have any rationale for action as anything we do must have been preordained, physically for Marx. Take the guy at the computer next to me. If I pull out a gun and shoot him it was pre-determined by the physical nature of the universe.
But hey, about Marx's time every philosopher and academic was either a Hegelian or a Romantic. I don't necessarily blame Marx for holding these views. However, I do blame you as it's been 180 years since Hegel and science has verified indeterminicy in the universe itself through quantum mechanics.
Using this logic every possible thing we see we must classify as rational. And from rational many would derive "good".
: But if you want to persuade anybody about the feudal bit look no further.
Why go to another debate room? We have one here.
