Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters"
channel.
-
52
-
26
-
15
-
13
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@eldermillennial8330 Fascists/communists believe that all means of production are under state control. ALL forms of collectivism only end up collectivizing those companies/industries it singles out. There's too much going on in an economy to be socialist about the whole thing. It's all pretty arbitrary. And they invariably destroy whatever industries they nationalize.
The Nazis nationalized heavy industry, agriculture (more bread for the people!) and the railroads, among other things. Their ability to feed themselves was destroyed, because the bureaucrats had no idea how to run a business, as you say. People were freezing in winter because there was no coal. Actually, there was PLENTY of coal. They just couldn't get it from the mines to the people because the socialist government decided cheap train fares for family vacations were more important. No cars for coal. Not even enough for passengers, because the demand for the under-market train tickets was through the roof. It's all pandering and incompetence. The Nazis were terribly incompetent.
Krupp Steel remained under private ownership, but it was more than happy to do and make anything the government told it to do or make. Some - like me - believe there is no functional difference between government ownership and government control. In either case, production is dictated by the government. Eventually, as is always the case, they needed slave labor to prop up their socialist project. They also needed to rob every Jew with two pfennigs to rub together. Privileges that accrue to industrialists under fascism also accrue to industrialists under communism. Big business welcomes government control. No more competition and too big to fail.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@atriumfalanggaming6470 The USA adopted MANY fascist features in the war against fascism. Those features didn't go away over time. They were baked into the political economy and the culture as "good things." Surveillance state shifted to anti-communism, and grew into what can only be described as 21st-Century Cossacks. State-run media was achieved, functionally, by media who were given insider access in return for printing government (and corporate) press releases VERBATIM as "news." Stories embarrassing to establishment members were suppressed/censored.
Indoctrination of children in state-run public schools has been going on since the turn of the 20th Century, if not before. State involvement in the health care industry has made a red-tape NIGHTMARE that's grossly overpriced for anyone who actually pays out of pocket. Socialized medicine was the thin edge of the wedge of fascism in Weimar Germany. Bismarck came up with the idea in the late 19th Century, because industrialization and a growing middle class was making the aristocracy (the ruling-class Junkers) obsolete.
The model for socialized medicine was taking from Krupp Steel, which basically invented the company town. They spent their corporate largesse on a paternalistic business model. Company workers gave their loyalty oath to the company, and in return, the company "cared for them." Nobody thought to ask "If you can afford all these freebies, why don't you just pay your workers more and let THEM decide how to handle their health care needs?" Bismarck really liked the loyalty oath and the fanatical loyalty such patronage instilled in Krupp workers. Bismarck wanted that kind of unthinking, unswerving loyalty from the masses towards the state and hence towards the ruling elites.
Free stuff from the state is just a way to perpetuate serfdom by another name. That's the upshot of all the Marxist theory. It's just a way for a small ruling elite to get control over us peasants. We want a NEW way, not some pseudo-intellectual justification for a return to the OLD WAYS, and that's all that government-paid "free stuff" amounts to. "Let's get 'em hooked on the government tit, and we can get away with ANYthing!"
I'm sure that's not what Marx was thinking. Marx was an intellectual who wasn't paid what he thought he was worth. An overgrown child, who could spin any tale required to cast himself as poor and picked-upon, even though he was born with all the advantages of a good education and hard-working parents who'd built up a modest fortune, which he IMMEDIATELY squandered on himself. A political theory created by a spoiled narcissist doesn't carry much weight with me.
3
-
2
-
Women are bred to seek security and safety for themselves and their brood. The government proposes marriage and many women eagerly accept, and any threat to that government assistance is "life or death" for them, so they get hysterical.
Being a good woman, taking care of yourself, and proving you're going to be a good partner with good morals for life is too high a bar for a few, and therefore unfair in the eyes of all.
They're authoritarian because to them, authoritarianism is preferable to ANY kind of uncertainty, and government programs have no uncertainty, until of course, the wheels fall off society because of all the boys raised in fatherless homes, and other factors. The women don't see this. They just see a threat to next month's check.
Many people will not strive to improve their situation if their needs are met without work. The lack of greed amongst such people is admirable, but what's not admirable is to think that everyone can be a net taker from the system, rather than a net contributor.
We're in an era now where the contributors are being crushed by the recipients, and the bureaucrats whose wealth and status are derived from administering the re-distribution of wealth from contributors to recipients (and to corporations. Corporate welfare is also a thing.). Politicians LOVE constituents who live off the dole. Those are easy votes to win. Just promise more free stuff than the other guy, and you have a huge voting bloc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Male and female have always been idealized, sometimes to a ridiculous degree (Kardashian) in art and entertainment, since the first Earth Goddess carving. Standards of beauty drift over time, somewhat, but fast-forward to today, and I think our standards for beauty in media and entertainment are VERY different from standards of beauty in real life.
Like the young lady said, if you're your best self, physically, as in diet, exercise and grooming, you will be attractive to the opposite sex. I can't tell you how many crushes I've had on different girls/women over the years, starting as a boy in 1st grade, with a crush on Dixie, who was the brightest and most vivacious girl in class. But if you put her - or ANY of my crushes - up against a tv/movie actress, she'll look dumpy or plain. But in real life, it's a totally different ballgame.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1