everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

Death brings success to all.

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

let us move more into the practical realm of fascist.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

> everyone will have a job

I’ve been wondering lately about how to arrange for maximum employment – and came to the conclusion that I don’t know what a “job” is.

On the one hand there are jobs like “housewife”. On the other hand there are “make work” jobs that accomplish nothing of value. For example we can say that an entertainer’s job is to entertain, but on the flipside we can say that an audience’s job is to express appreciation. So in a sense an entertainee can be said to have a job, even when ze pays for the privilege of working. It’s a “make work” job.

Another job that I’m beginning to have doubts about is gatekeeper. A gatekeeper’s job is to stop everything from happening. It is a job, but it has an entirely negative effect on people whose job it is to make things better.

roughbarked said:

let us move more into the practical realm of fascist.

Yes, lets. Start by consulting wikipedia.

Suppose i was to define Fascism as an “authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”.

Well, that describes North Korea. But I’ve never heard North Korea being called fascist, it’s usually called communist.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

let us move more into the practical realm of fascist.

Yes, lets. Start by consulting wikipedia.

Suppose i was to define Fascism as an “authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”.

Well, that describes North Korea. But I’ve never heard North Korea being called fascist, it’s usually called communist.

Trump would deny being labelled communist.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

>>–ism is a suffix added to the end of a word to indicate that the word represents a specific practice, system, or philosophy. Often these practices, systems, or philosophies are political ideologies or artistic movements. Using –ism at the end of a word also suggests the word is related to a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as an authority by a group or school of thought. The suffix –ism is always added to the end of a noun and a word with a –ism suffix is also always a noun. I am sure you have seen the suffix –ism on the end of many words in the past. Below I have highlighted some common –ism words and given the definitions of these words.<<

https://blogs.transparent.com/english/what-is-an-%E2%80%93ism/

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

If it was me, I have totally forgotten everything I told you.

>Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

yeah i’m similar, skeptical of, but there is the point that somehow systems work, that they are systems, and involve bridging ideas to make them work.

workarounds, notions, expediencies, to ‘optimize’, if you like.

harnessing the animal spirits, if you will.

one of great advantages of money is its magical conversional qualities, and everyone is in the business of realizing fundamental desires with instrumental desires, so it(money) lends to that very well.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

If it was me, I have totally forgotten everything I told you.

Let me put my current view of the dimensions of government in a diagram. (Note, this may not be my opinion tomorrow).

The top diagram should be clear enough. Corruption is where the government takes all the money and gives nothing back. Debt is where the government spends more than it earns.

The second axis, between dictatorship and swamp, is so vague as to be almost useless. Perhaps you can think of “swamp” as laissez-faire communism (or co-op), a state never approached in any world government, but is being approached by matrix management.

The other two axes, militarism and mechanisation, are largely self-explanatory.

On those, I don’t see anything that could possibly be labeled “fascism”. If fascism is considered far right, then that would mean laissez-faire minimal government, which is the opposite of what the Nazi party did. So you can see why I’m confused.

Even on the dictatorship-swamp axis, the group of “Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Göring” could be considered less of dictatorship than Trump.

What have I missed?

The idea of a universal basic income is gaining traction, but will require further mass job losses due to automation before it becomes commonly accepted.

transition said:

everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money

no great creativity about that above, a variation of everyone shall work, but no one shall work against the state, and that maybe can be attributed to Emory S Borgardus.

this chap possibly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_S._Bogardus

so, the idea expressed in the variation, is fascism evolved into a soft form, a sort of universal idea, a forceful notion, a cultural dominance of the view (unabstracted or otherwise) that every persons primary function was to work for (the) money. It’s your broader job description, the job of all jobs, and incredibly similar across the population.

no guns perhaps, but the threat of poverty. Replace the AK47 with ideology, if you will, to that end.

to get this to work it needs be internalized by many, and devices employed to do the good work. Expedient ideas, lending to views.

ways of seeing things that save a person a lot of thought, keep the internal conflict to a minimum. People like contradictions hanging in their heads not much. Thought that results in psychic discomfort is a sign of illness you know.

this everyone will have a job, and nobody shall work against money does cause (various) conflicts, but there must be ways to get around it, shared views to divert from the downsides. Other explanations on offer, shared views that feel more natural, because they’re shared, commonsense.

everyone shall be persuaded by commonsense, and there shall be no good sense that contradicts commonsense, maybe.

anyway my question is of (what i’m calling) soft fascism (for my purposes here), its encroachment on other forms of capital in human relationships.

where’s it going?

can anyone escape it?

>>>where’s it going?

Globalism controlled by the rich, the rich have more needs than the many

>>>can anyone escape it?

Fast Spaceship.

Group Behaviour is interesting.

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>where’s it going?

Globalism controlled by the rich, the rich have more needs than the many

>>>can anyone escape it?

Fast Spaceship.

But if fascism is equated to extreme nationalism, then that’s the exact opposite of globalism. We see this nationalism in increased economic sanctions by the USA against other countries.

I like globalism very much. Not only does it provide jobs in impoverished countriee. Not only is it better at transferring money from wealthy to impoverished countries than charity. It is also superb at preventing wars. As soon as a war starts, multinational companies pull out, and that results in a huge loss of national income so is an extreme disincentive to starting the war in the first place.

Peace, man.

>If fascism is considered far right, then that would mean laissez-faire minimal government, which is the opposite of what the Nazi party did. So you can see why I’m confused.

the fascists of past didn’t eliminate private ownership, as communism might, clearly they saw it as necessary to the structure of ordering forces. Certainly needed the industrialists for the war machine.

free countries more rely on self-ordering forces, in a sense anarchist you could argue.

anyway, my point was of a universalizing idea, ways of thinking lending to a particular view. Clearly the power of culture as a determinant of behaviour was strong with fascism, as it was (or is) with communism.

not much is made of cultural determinism in fascism, or applied social constructionism it could be said, but you can be sure the people with superior natures appreciated the power of it.

so, my argument is perhaps best evidenced in a low tolerance of ideas that contradict some universal.

variously the notion, or ideas that approximate everyone shall have a job, and nobody shall work against money, i’m wondering how tolerant our culture is, or cultural forces, the ordering forces, wondering how tolerant people are of any ideas that contradict that.

whether the tolerance has seriously contracted, or contracted at all and what the trend is.

it’s really something a person has to measure internally, of self, but you can see if the ideological devices work, the psychological bridging devices, the imaginative work involved to do that is less likely.

transition said:

>If fascism is considered far right, then that would mean laissez-faire minimal government, which is the opposite of what the Nazi party did. So you can see why I’m confused.

the fascists of past didn’t eliminate private ownership, as communism might, clearly they saw it as necessary to the structure of ordering forces. Certainly needed the industrialists for the war machine.

free countries more rely on self-ordering forces, in a sense anarchist you could argue.

anyway, my point was of a universalizing idea, ways of thinking lending to a particular view. Clearly the power of culture as a determinant of behaviour was strong with fascism, as it was (or is) with communism.

not much is made of cultural determinism in fascism, or applied social constructionism it could be said, but you can be sure the people with superior natures appreciated the power of it.

so, my argument is perhaps best evidenced in a low tolerance of ideas that contradict some universal.

variously the notion, or ideas that approximate everyone shall have a job, and nobody shall work against money, i’m wondering how tolerant our culture is, or cultural forces, the ordering forces, wondering how tolerant people are of any ideas that contradict that.

whether the tolerance has seriously contracted, or contracted at all and what the trend is.

it’s really something a person has to measure internally, of self, but you can see if the ideological devices work, the psychological bridging devices, the imaginative work involved to do that is less likely.

You’re right, i haven’t begun to answer the core of your original question. What was the question again?

> my argument is perhaps best evidenced in a low tolerance of ideas that contradict some universal.

Tolerance by the government or by the plebs or by the press? The press is, and always has been, intolerant of everything.

The plebs are more tolerant than they think. With the exception of a very few people (those who wre interviewed by the press for example) no-one remains intolerant of the same thing for more than about 5 years (due to reduction of cognitive dissonance). Governments fall somewhere in between the two.

> everyone shall have a job, and nobody shall work against money

Is there anyone who actually believes those any more? Even as an unattainable ideal?

> whether the tolerance has seriously contracted, or contracted at all and what the trend is.

All i can do is make a wild guess. My guess is that the level of tolerance has remained the same, but has shifted focus. Take the U S A for example. An intolerance of blacks has been replaced by a intolerance of white supremacists. The level of intolerance is much the same but the focus has shifted.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know someone on the forum (perhaps Rev D) tried to describe it to me, but I still haven’t the foggiest idea what Fascism is, to say nothing of whether it ever existed.

Usually, if a word has “-ism” on the end of it then it never existed, but was dreamed up by some opponent as a belittlement. eg. there has never been a communism, fundamentalism, imperialism, existentialism or capitalism.

If it was me, I have totally forgotten everything I told you.

Let me put my current view of the dimensions of government in a diagram. (Note, this may not be my opinion tomorrow).

The top diagram should be clear enough. Corruption is where the government takes all the money and gives nothing back. Debt is where the government spends more than it earns.

The second axis, between dictatorship and swamp, is so vague as to be almost useless. Perhaps you can think of “swamp” as laissez-faire communism (or co-op), a state never approached in any world government, but is being approached by matrix management.

The other two axes, militarism and mechanisation, are largely self-explanatory.

On those, I don’t see anything that could possibly be labeled “fascism”. If fascism is considered far right, then that would mean laissez-faire minimal government, which is the opposite of what the Nazi party did. So you can see why I’m confused.

Even on the dictatorship-swamp axis, the group of “Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Göring” could be considered less of dictatorship than Trump.

What have I missed?

The main thing you’ve missed is that right wing governments increase the debt more than left wing governments these days. There was a time when fiscal restraint was popular on the right but that gave way to a tax cut fetish and enhanced military spending.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

>>>where’s it going?

Globalism controlled by the rich, the rich have more needs than the many

>>>can anyone escape it?

Fast Spaceship.

But if fascism is equated to extreme nationalism, then that’s the exact opposite of globalism. We see this nationalism in increased economic sanctions by the USA against other countries.

I like globalism very much. Not only does it provide jobs in impoverished countriee. Not only is it better at transferring money from wealthy to impoverished countries than charity. It is also superb at preventing wars. As soon as a war starts, multinational companies pull out, and that results in a huge loss of national income so is an extreme disincentive to starting the war in the first place.

Peace, man.

doubt’t explain much if the definition of fascism was constrained by nation, I mean historically it’s been expansionist. Globalism is expansionist, but I get your point about the troubles of flag waving gone mad.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

let us move more into the practical realm of fascist.

Yes, lets. Start by consulting wikipedia.

Suppose i was to define Fascism as an “authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy”.

Well, that describes North Korea. But I’ve never heard North Korea being called fascist, it’s usually called communist.

Difference between fascism and communism is communists wear ill fitting clothes of rough fibres, fascists dress nattily in well cut uniforms.

Communism is explicit in government owns the means of production, fascism has everything within the state which includes private industry so they can direct private industry, have government members on its board and even direct resources toward it.

Close enough.

lol

▶️ Watch this reel
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/r4iTYiX3dPF4SXk1/?mibextid=D5vuiz

dv said:

▶️ Watch this reel
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/r4iTYiX3dPF4SXk1/?mibextid=D5vuiz

I wonder if Hitler’s doctor gave him pills for that problem

blast from the past there, someone getting some typing practice, i’d need think about it a while and consider if I agree with that person, still today, lost a few brain cells courtesy apoptosis, couple traumas, more experience of experiences, anyways I don’t want to disagree with myself too strongly too soon, do an injury that way, so slowly, maybe i’ll pop in after a good sleep, though had a few between so probably won’t do it