Left and Rzzight

[Pedro I Rengel]

A collective can explicitly favour elitism and incorporate it in its theoretical considerations, because it makes sense in the context of a collective, who is best in the collective.

Individualists can't really explicitly even consider it, much less integrate it in theory. In that sense, it is much more egalitarian. Some distinctions may arrise between individuals eventually which might from the outside be discerened as elites and less elite. But even then, groups are implied.

[Pedro I Rengel]

An elite warrior. The best of the group orcollective "warrior,' the one who best espouses the characteristics of the group, the ultimate expression of the collective.

An elite individual? Think about it, it doesn't even make sense.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Why is there never any talk of "elite" businessmen or elite merchants?

Elite traders?

[Pedro I Rengel]

It's because individuals, and capitalists (not as in adhering to the ideology capitalism, which doesn't exist, but as in people out to accumulate capital as Marx used it), aren't measured against a group or collective. They are measured aginst themselves, against their own success.

[Pedro I Rengel]

"He's an elite filmmaker."

No.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Weirdly there is the term business elite. but still weirdly there is not then an elite businessman.

that's because business elite is a cover for fascist corporatist ideology. The idea that there is a group of people versed in the best characteristics of the collective of merchants. Silly.

Anyway, when mentioning business elite, they rarely mean entrepreneurs. they tend to refer to the type of corporate operator that can only thrive and indeed exist within the frame of heavy regulations. The elitism arises not from their business savvy, but from their knowledge of the intricate web of regulations that create a collective where governments, businesses and corporations become indistinguishable.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Maybe I ot lost with that last post.

But I did say, from the outside, there may arise individuals that can be differentiated from other individuals to form something that can perhaps be called an elite. A business elite. But only post facto, never from the inside where the term elite businessman can make no sense.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And like I also said, it already implies a group, it already doesn't refer to individuals but a kind of collective.

No entrepreneur setting out aims to be an elite businessman which, again, doesn't make sense as a term, or part of a business elite. They just set out to crush and get rich. Then if they make it perhaps they can be considered part of the business elite. But even then... I can imagine people using the term business elite, but I can't imagine them then pointing out specific people within it. It is a sort of nebulous term referring to a vague thing. A group that perhaps doesn't exist, as it cannot. It is refering to what is a measure of success, not to what characteristics a member of the collective would have to hold to make part of it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Business elite. It's sort of dissociated from the actual activity of capitalism.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yeah, fuck it, I stick by that. Business elite is a term that refers to corporatism, not entrepreneurship. There is crossover, so the term works, but not an actual correspondence.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Is Jay-Z part of a or the business elite?

[Pedro I Rengel]

How I feel about communists:

[Pedro I Rengel]

Even Patton. You can say Patton was the best goddamn general in the war, but you can't say he was elite.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Also Trump.

[Pedro I Rengel]

On the other hand, Justin "pretty boy" Trudeau is clearly elite, part of an or the elite.

[Pedro I Rengel]

That's why people hate Trump so deeply and love Obama, even though Trump is much better at his job and far less of a psychopath than Obama ever was.

It's because these people trust Elites, good or bad, as long as they manifest the characteristics of the Elite, that "presidential" tone. Because they don't trust themselves as individuals. So Trump, a magnisfiscent manifestation of an individual, scares the shit out of them.

[barbarianhorde]

That's why people hate Trump so deeply and love Obama, even though Trump is much better at his job and far less of a psychopath than Obama ever was.

It's because these people trust Elites, good or bad, as long as they manifest the characteristics of the Elite, that "presidential" tone. Because they don't trust themselves as individuals. So Trump, a magnisfiscent manifestation of an individual, scares the shit out of them.

What Ive always said.

Trump is an actual citizen, of these The People guys. This is the first time in history the whole US setup actually came into play on the executive level.



"Because they don't trust themselves as individuals."




And FUCK em for that.

leeches, lice, fucking less than nothing unbeings. I hate.

[Gloominary]

Yeah, fuck it, I stick by that. Business elite is a term that refers to corporatism, not entrepreneurship. There is crossover, so the term works, but not an actual correspondence.

Capitalism itself is a kind of exploitation, in that when the means of production is made more efficient via advancements in automation and energy production, rather than capitalists sharing some of the spoils with workers, they lay them off, and later rehire them to do increasingly meaningless work.
I say meaningless because most or much of the meaningful work (taking care of societies necessities, and even its natural wants if you will) has been taken by machines, giving way to a consumerism (created wants) that largely benefits capitalists, ruining our health and the health of the planet in the process.
And the process of obsolescence, laying off and rehiring continues.
economic growth used to be a good thing, but it's become the enemy of the people and the environment.

Furthermore, the left argues unbridled capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism, and I agree.
And we've had corporatism for decades.
It's not enough to simply remove the corruption in place, the elite have been getting richer off of it for over a century.
They owe us trillions of dollars in reparations.

[Serendipper]

Exactly! I'm flattered that you're copying me

[Serendipper]

Negative,nazis are leftists. Except the KKK. But the KKK doesn't actually exist anymore except as a kind of fanclub, like Magic the Gathering. they dress up and shit. No real intent there to do anything.

Neocons don't seek to wipe anyone out, as proved by iraq, where they made a big mess but never wiped or tried to wipe anyone out.

Paleoconservative begins to be a bit too obscure of a term for me. Not a native gringo. Will you flesh it out for me?

But nazis really are communists. They are for the commune, against the individual.

If you look at it on a per policy basis, leftists today align almost perfectly with Nazis.

Nazis are the right: conservative policies, traditional values, theocratic authoritarian leadership. Nazism is essentially a wing of the catholic church.

Communism is Left only when it occurs naturally (which has never happened). Apart from that, all dictators who try to impose communistic policies prematurely hail from the Right.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yeah, fuck it, I stick by that. Business elite is a term that refers to corporatism, not entrepreneurship. There is crossover, so the term works, but not an actual correspondence.

Capitalism itself is a kind of exploitation, in that when the means of production is made more efficient via advancements in automation and energy production, rather than capitalists sharing some of the spoils with workers, they lay them off, and later rehire them to do increasingly meaningless work.
I say meaningless because most or much of the meaningful work (taking care of societies necessities, and even its natural wants if you will) has been taken by machines, giving way to a consumerism (created wants) that largely benefits capitalists, ruining our health and the health of the planet in the process.
And the process of obsolescence, laying off and rehiring continues.
economic growth used to be a good thing, but it's become the enemy of the people and the environment.

Furthermore, the left argues unbridled capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism, and I agree.
And we've had corporatism for decades.
It's not enough to simply remove the corruption in place, the elite have been getting richer off of it for over a century.
They owe us trillions of dollars in reparations.

Regarding the exploitation thing: yeah, ok, so what? I was not even remotely talking about this. What's with the pivot?

Regarding the corporatism: actually if you look at the history of the thing, all regulatory innitiatives and creation of corporatist bodies, here referring to bodies constituted by the State to participate in free enterprise and capitalistic activities, are undertaken in the name of some leftist aim: regulating the economy somehow to protect the vulnerable. See: fanny May and Freddy Mac.

Anyway, like I been saying, right wing politics is not about building a perfectc system from the bottom up. we leave that genocidal project to the left. The right is about working with what is there for the benefit of all.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Negative,nazis are leftists. Except the KKK. But the KKK doesn't actually exist anymore except as a kind of fanclub, like Magic the Gathering. they dress up and shit. No real intent there to do anything.

Neocons don't seek to wipe anyone out, as proved by iraq, where they made a big mess but never wiped or tried to wipe anyone out.

Paleoconservative begins to be a bit too obscure of a term for me. Not a native gringo. Will you flesh it out for me?

But nazis really are communists. They are for the commune, against the individual.

If you look at it on a per policy basis, leftists today align almost perfectly with Nazis.

Nazis are the right: conservative policies, traditional values, theocratic authoritarian leadership. Nazism is essentially a wing of the catholic church.

Communism is Left only when it occurs naturally (which has never happened). Apart from that, all dictators who try to impose communistic policies prematurely hail from the Right.

[Pedro I Rengel]

I'm just gonna attack my own weak spot here, because I ain't see nobody capable of even noticing it.

The only thing that can associate Nazism and Fascism to the right is the militarism. The almost sensual love for all things military. Military uniform fetish.

The US is the cure for this. Proof of how effective that cure is is how disdainful all the Europeans were of the US military during WW2. Gringo soldiers are very ironic and cynical about martial feelings. It's like they think of it all as a joke, but within that joke they will be damned if they don't put together the most effective killing force in the history of mankind. Cause they have to, cause if not the fucking nazis take over.

Individuals, weirdly, somehow, through that ironic humor, survive and exist within the US military. Not so, very much not so Nazi military.

Anyway, your welcome. think on this and come at me in a bit with an actual meaningful attack.

[Pedro I Rengel]

The sado-masochist sensuality of Discipline.

But then, is that really right wing? It is collectivism itself, that thought.

But it is the place where the line between right wing and collectivism becomes blurry and weird. And yet, weirdly, somehow, a blurring that the USofA seems impervious to.

Why do you think that is?

[Pedro I Rengel]