In comparisson to prophets, wise men are born in masses.
My main Indian
- Thread starter rockwool
- Start date
anybody heard from rockwool lately?
It reads to me that you believe a system in which education reaps the greatest rewards is no better than one where violence does. Sounds a little Khmer Rougey.
I said MulattO you jaffa!I can't believe it's not Mulatta.
It's the accent mate, the accent.I said MulattO you jaffa!
Sheesh it's half-breed.I can't believe it's not Mulatta.
irate2:
I like sarcasm; it's so much better for taunting the unwashed.
No. It's about once usage of abilities against his fellow humans. One that thinks that his abilites are allowed to be used against others just because he can, because he has those, is a fascist. That is the core in fascist ideology. So it's not about the schooling.
The Woo: I was on a roll yesterday. =)
So very true.
Or a Marxist.
Go on, back that up...
***WARNING**** The first person to go Monty Python on this thread gets a cyber kick in the yam bag.
Ya gotta nip that sh*t in the bud or you get the next 30 replies full of watery tarts and nerds making pricks of themselves. That particular meme is played muthafukka.
Acceptable but rapidly reaching its use by date. Carry on.In deference to His Australian Majesty, I shall instead take the thread to another world:
They were Nazis, dude?
Donnie, they were threatening castration...let's not split hairs here...
Help, help I'm being oppressed!
Lets face it VB the Pythons was incidental....... You were just gagging for a reason to post that pic weren't you ya deviant fruit booter! 
Everyday in everyway I need to remind the locals just who won the f*cken war.Lets face it VB the Pythons was incidental....... You were just gagging for a reason to post that pic weren't you!
Not Aussie? 
We were holding our own until those friggin Yanks came off the bench and stole all the bloody glory.
dude.... holding ya on willie's going "Oh fvck, oh fvck, oh fvck"
All I'm saying is that the Nippon Empire was very lucky it wasn't us that took 'em over.
Anyway whaddya talkin' about, ya friggin wanker, your blokes were useless as cannon fodder. Stupid ANZAC spirit, we should just set you free and you bastards can float off towards Chile or something.
Your tale is missing something?
Ah yes some mood music to set the scene.
Ah yes some mood music to set the scene.
Karate Kid obviously effed up quite a few generations.
Of the very little I know of Das Kapital the proletariat has the right to seize control over the factorys their working at just because of the fact that they are the ones working them. A libertarian thinker, one of the great ones, don't remember who, said that one cannot own land as land, air and water belongs to us all, but that the work that a peasant puts in to that land ties him to it. I agree with that.
The defenition of fascism I gave is indeed described on an individual level. The one of über mänsch having the right to do as they please with those that they can, and in turn have to find them selves in being used by others. The over über ones.
Rockwool's definition was really that of Social Darwinism which is often viewed as an integral part of Fascism/Naziism. It is most definitely not Marxist however. The example you give of the proletariat seizing control of the means of production is (in theory) a levelling of the labour/reward structure, directly opposed to the ability/reward equation previously postulated. Once levelled all people are part of the great proletariat, which is where pure Marxist practice falls down as human nature reverts to a degree of getting what one can.
Defining Fascism is in itself an entirely different question.
Sounds like a typical enzed pop song.Your tale is missing something?
Ah yes some mood music to set the scene.
(Cue Narlus to ram the whole Flying Nun back catalogue down my cakehole.
)So we have one glib, inaccurate characterization echoed by another, which did its job... But it's OK for Rockwool, I guess.
Also funny that somehow Nietzchean terms suddenly come into use with Rockwool...Hitler might have loved Nietzsche, but Nietzsche definitely wouldn't have loved Hitler.
Can you not see the inherent contradiction in your arguments?
Overcapacity = capital. Same thing.
For anyone to benefit directly from their own "overcapacity" one would have to exist in a capitalist state. In any economic system left of socialism, that capital belongs to the collective, not to the individual.
Don't be sensitive; yours was just a little more glib and concise. It was also already there by the time I saw his.
Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing when I typed my response to your response to Rockwool's post; how difficult it is to reconcile Nietzche with Hitler's embrace.
Well, it's true that if you politicize some of Nietzche's aesthetic concepts, you can seen the strains of some sort of fascism...but you can't take any of Nietzche without understanding his generally a/anti-political stance, or his disbelief in absolutes...
And speaking of social Darwinism, he wasn't fond of that as a concept, either...pointing out that the weak often avoid any sort of risk, while the strong may dare to do risky things.
And speaking of social Darwinism, he wasn't fond of that as a concept, either...pointing out that the weak often avoid any sort of risk, while the strong may dare to do risky things.
On that latter point, it's arguable that one's perspective on risk taking is an integral part of whether one is weak or strong. An ability unused is no ability at all in the end result.
Going back to my previous post, another reason I haven't picked at the flaws in Rockwool's posting is that to do so requires more time than I've had so far. It will come however as I think this thread has actually thrown up some decent discussion points without too many red herrings.
Who said anything about forced? Once you use force then you are instantly into the realms of exploitation. However, if force is not involved then exploitation is not implicit.
For example, if I start an enterprise making widgets that return a profit of $500 per widget of which a worker can produce maximum of 4 per day and pay my employees double the national average salary then they get a good deal and I don't maximise my profits via trying to get the cheapest labour possible. In return I would hope to receive loyalty, commitment and respect.
If I were to locate my manufacturing to Burundi and pay $1 a day to my labourers then I enormously enhance my profits but give nothing but the bare minimum to the workers because I can get away with it. That would be exploitation of my workforce in my opinion, but not everyones.
Trafficking woman from Eastern Europe to force them into the sex industry in the UK would probably be exploitation in almost anyone's eyes.
By whatever means exploitation is achieved it would still be exploitation, but if you do not give some incentive to people to use their talents then why would anyone bother? Do you think that any form of ownership, management or reward for effort equates to exploitation?
Day 1? Really...? It also seems to me that it is not necessarily the most intelligent people that get to the perceived top of the capitalist pile.
Thank you for preserving that, Fluff...it has helped me realize that in order to make sense of most of what Rockwool says, I need to insert a series of deep inhales, harsh coughs, held breaths, and smoke-blowing. Once you do that, it all sort of comes together.fluff said:
Yeah, I wasn't agreeing, just pointing out Nietzsche's view...he wasn't known for his consistency or rigor...he's full of contradictions and overdramatic declarations. (Which contributes to my understanding of him...frankly, I think you can't examine what he says to get at his ultimate message--you have to look at how he says it. It's a medium-is-the-message thing, and his philosophy is ultimately an aesthetic/literary construct more than an imitable plan for how to live. Which, in the end, means to live in a dramatic and artistic fashion, creating a life as something of unique interest and beauty, rather than trying to fulfill some invented historic goal or living according to some wacky metaphysical imperative.)fluff said: