Perpetual Deception & Scientologists

[mickturate]

state ownership socialist? or capitalist?

last i saw Obama had a 70% stake in GM on your behalf....
& ditto the banks.

this debate is typical $clilon: debating the meaning of words while the bigger fish fry, was Adolf H. bad?
hell yes.
did it matter if he called himself a national socialist?
hell no
are all $clilons bad? hell no (not as people, but as evangelists: hell yes)
is all $cilon tech bad? hell yes

not because its $clilon tech but because it is $old by the $clilon corps as a totalitarian view of world salvation.

my world, your world, was i asked? were you asked?
no, but this is being sold at the cost of disconnections, deaths & for our own benefit. I'd prefer a lolly.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

"Scilons" don't have any monopoly on discussion of semantics and subtleties, believe me.

 

[me myself & i]

"Scilons" don't have any monopoly on discussion of semantics and subtleties, believe me.

That's classic!

"Believe me"...(I am a Scientologist).

If there is one single thing that every truth loving, law abiding, decent and honest human being knows, that knows of the fundamental doctrine of Scientologys "ACCEPTABLE TRUTH" (wink wink), lol, it's that a scientologist saying 'believe me' is like a government official saying 'I'm here to help you' (to a self made millionaire).

Classic to the core.

Of course the standard scientology response, if not 'silence' or 'attack' (which is another fundamental doctrine of the scientology religion) is to say something like: well, I was talking about how Scilons" don't have any monopoly on discussion of semantics and subtleties", thus your mentioning of the scientology doctrine of telling acceptable truths doesn't even apply. Followed by, well, an attack on the author of such a blasphemous observation. For example: Did you know that that author has written posts of both pro AND con about scientology! LOL!

Long live scientologist's I say. For the sheer amusement factor. So long as they remain to be less than 2.5 %, of any given population, at any given time.

mm&i

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

last i saw Obama had a 70% stake in GM on your behalf....
& ditto the banks.

this debate is typical $clilon: debating the meaning of words while the bigger fish fry, was Adolf H. bad?
hell yes.
did it matter if he called himself a national socialist?
hell no
are all $clilons bad? hell no (not as people, but as evangelists: hell yes)
is all $cilon tech bad? hell yes

not because its $clilon tech but because it is $old by the $clilon corps as a totalitarian view of world salvation.

my world, your world, was i asked? were you asked?
no, but this is being sold at the cost of disconnections, deaths & for our own benefit. I'd prefer a lolly.

If you don't understand what we are talking about just say so. We can talk about whatever we want and we don't need your blessing or approval.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Alanzo]

Socialism does not require complete state ownership. It can coexist with private ownership. It does require a substantial degree of state control. This is normally accomplished through partial state ownership. National Socialism did not rely on state ownership but sought (and received) political cooperation from private industry on the basis of mutual advantage.

Complete state ownership is the hallmark of a communist system. This is frequently confused, at least in the u.s., with socialism. They are actually completely different economic systems, although the Russian experiment did serve to confuse terminology. Besides, since when have facts been a significant factor in determining u.s. public opinion?


Mark A. Baker

When I look back on my own 8th grade World History class, I'm afraid that TAJ is correct.

Fascism is the economic system where the means of production is owned privately, but the rate of production is dictated by the state. That's how they made the "clocks run on time", if not the trains themselves.

Communism, and to a lesser degree socialism, is where all means of production, all factories, all companies, all property, are owned by the state. And as owners of everything, the government decides the rate of production and the distribution of products and everything else.

TAJ ,and my 8th grade teacher, were consistent with world history.

You guys need to go to the SPs at wikipedia and clear your misunderstoods.

Communism

Fascism

This is why Scientology is a Fascist system. Scientology allows private ownership of schools, and other WISE dominated companies, but their production is controlled by the Church of Scientology.

Ask anyone who has owned a business under WISE.

You'll get a real life education in Fascism real fast.

 

[me myself & i]

Beautiful. And Impressively spoken.

That's all.

When I look back on my own 8th grade World History class, I'm afraid that TAJ is correct.

Fascism is the economic system where the means of production is owned privately, but the rate of production is dictated by the state. That's how they made the "clocks run on time", if not the trains themselves.

Communism, and to a lesser degree socialism, is where all means of production, all factories, all companies, all property, are owned by the state. And as owners of everything, the government decides the rate of production and the distribution of products and everything else.

TAJ ,and my 8th grade teacher, were consistent with world history.

You guys need to go to the SPs at wikipedia and clear your misunderstoods.

Communism

Fascism

This is why Scientology is a Fascist system. Scientology allows private ownership of schools, and other WISE dominated companies, but their production is controlled by the Church of Scientology.

Ask anyone who has owned a business under WISE.

You'll get a real life education in this real fast.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

When I look back on my own 8th grade World History class, I'm afraid that TAJ is correct.

Fascism is the economic system where the means of production is owned privately, but the rate of production is dictated by the state. That's how they made the "clocks run on time", if not the trains themselves.

Communism, and to a lesser degree socialism, is where all means of production, all factories, all companies, all property, are owned by the state. And as owners of everything, the government decides the rate of production and the distribution of products and everything else.

TAJ ,and my 8th grade teacher, were consistent with world history.

You guys need to go to the SPs at wikipedia and clear your misunderstoods.

Close but no cigar. You only get a B.

Socialism requires state predominance over establishment of economic policy. Absolute state control is not a requirement. Partial ownership of large commercial enterprises is the common means of obtaining this predominance. Total ownership is not. Private ownership is allowed & in many instances encouraged, although state planning predominates.

Throughout the 20th century Britain, Sweden, Denmark, France, etc., have been clear examples of socialist nations where the government did not maintain total ownership but did main policy control of the economy. In each private enterprise continued to exist.

Those economies in which the state owns outright all commercial assets are rightly termed "communist". Such states require general conformance to government policies to a degree that socialism typically does not due to a lack of alternatives present in the society as a whole.


Mark A. Baker

 

[HolyCow]

Personally, I've joined a new politico-socio-economic stream and religion. Gone from ExScn to Wog and now... a "Nog": New Order of Gardeners.
My past experiences of digging up dirt, toiling, and especially dealing in loads of crap have catapulted me up the ladder. In short time I've made it to OT 235334 (Operating Tiller)
Those causing trouble get weeded out fast and with no sorrow. There is no history, just seasons.
Life is simple and life is good.

As to this thread about "Deception"... there is no such thing in the Nog World: You can't fool Mother Nature!

 

[Alanzo]

Close but no cigar. You only get a B.

Socialism requires state predominance over establishment of economic policy. Absolute state control is not a requirement. Partial ownership of large commercial enterprises is the common means of obtaining this predominance. Total ownership is not. Private ownership is allowed & in many instances encouraged, although state planning predominates.

Throughout the 20th century Britain, Sweden, Denmark, France, etc., have been clear examples of socialist nations where the government did not maintain total ownership but did main policy control of the economy. In each private enterprise continued to exist.

Those economies in which the state owns outright all commercial assets are rightly termed "communist". Such states require general conformance to government policies to a degree that socialism typically does not due to a lack of alternatives present in the society as a whole.


Mark A. Baker

All right Mr. Smarty Pants.

What's Fascism, then?

 

[Panda Termint]

All right Mr. Smarty Pants.

What's Fascism, then?

See "Church of Scientology".

 

[Mark A. Baker]

All right Mr. Smarty Pants.

What's Fascism, then?

See TAJ's previous description. It's essentially correct. The only quibble is that it does tend to LOOK socialist, especially to a "casual" observer. Although as he points out it actually isn't.

A fascist economy is heavily influenced by state planning if not outright dominated by it. However, under facism the economy remains "capitalist". A degree of state control is achieved through "voluntary" cooperation by private owners in response to government assured profit incentives as well as political disincentives to non-cooperation. Capitalists are often happy to take the money and not ask questions. That's what capitalism does.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Zinjifar]

The big difference with Socialism is that it's supposed to be a gaggle of faceless yet honest bureaucrats running the central economy for the 'good' of the populace. Nice in theory, but it just never turns out that way. They become an 'interest group' with all the perks they want and the dachas too, and, they protect their livelihood with all the police power they also control.

Zinj

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The big difference with Socialism is that it's supposed to be a gaggle of faceless yet honest bureaucrats running the central economy for the 'good' of the populace. Nice in theory, but it just never turns out that way. They become an 'interest group' with all the perks they want and the dachas too, and, they protect their livelihood with all the police power they also control.

Zinj

So it's not like a "free market deregulated democracy" then?


Mark A. Baker

 

[me myself & i]

So it's not un-like a "free market deregulated democracy" then?


Mark A. Baker

Corrected.

For lulz.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Corrected.

For lulz.

The former was correct as written. The tone has a greater sense of dramatic irony, note the icon. Also, the statement as written eschewed the use of the double negative. What you did was alter the statement.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

Fascism

This is why Scientology is a Fascist system. Scientology allows private ownership of schools, and other WISE dominated companies, but their production is controlled by the Church of Scientology.

Ask anyone who has owned a business under WISE.

You'll get a real life education in Fascism real fast.

WISE. Been there.

I was thinking I was involved in a Capitalist system. We consulted and trained to assist business owners with the stress of running their businesses and helped to created a positive impact on their bottom lines. Obviously, now, I can see that I was majorly screwed up with a "crashing M/U."

Had it been explained to me that my own company was in integral part of a Fascist system, my expectations and sense of rightful entitlement would have been completely reordered.

 

[exscnchild]

...
Calling themselves Ex-Communists the whole while.
...

Yep. That does not mean that good things don't come of it though.

The thing is, in order for an open and free community to actually be open and free there needs to be an accommodation with regards to communication which allows all views to be heard even when, in fact, especially when, those views are contrary to our own. Clearly there needs to be a rules framework for communication or there is potential for abuse and disruption which can break down the community (although there are even exceptions to this, albeit few and far between, eg 4chan). Personally I welcome the presence of OSA trolls and non-"church" affiliated scientologists; every moment they spend here is a chance that the prison that Hubbard created in their minds will be opened.