definition of "fascism"

Author: prefix
Fascism

Posts

Total: 357
Topic's author
#331
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Or just to cut the crap, tell me what country you consider most capitalist.

That is not a relevant datum to my argument.

It is however the centerpiece to yours. So...

You need to "just to cut the crap, tell me what country you consider most capitalist."
#332
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
The magnitude of the human population
Thats again, not true, since not all systems produced as much trash per capita as capitalism did. In fact, the very choice to produce plastic, cars, factories, all kinds of chemicals and waste...ect. didnt happen until 300 years ago.
#333
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
You need to "just to cut the crap, tell me what country you consider most capitalist."
If you dont want to define capitalism or point me to what you consider as capitalism, then you also cannot claim that capitalism is good, as without definition, no one knows what you are talking about.
Topic's author
#334
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
332

Thats again, not true, since not all systems produced as much trash per capita as capitalism did. In fact, the very choice to produce plastic, cars, factories, all kinds of chemicals and waste...ect. didnt happen until 300 years ago.

First off, you speak of "per capita".  Right there is a reference to the fact that more humans means more impact on the environment. 

Then you say "300 years ago". The population today is 1600% higher that it was then.  WE could then expect 16 times more impact today, regardless of government types.

Then in 333 you say

If you dont want to define capitalism or point me to what you consider as capitalism, then you also cannot claim that capitalism is good, as without definition, no one knows what you are talking about.

I am NOT the one talking about capitalism.YOU ARE,

YOU DEFINE IT,


#335
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
Then you say "300 years ago". The population today is 1600% higher that it was then.  WE could then expect 16 times more impact today, regardless of government types.
Again, the trash and chemicals and waste which are the main source of pollution didnt even exist until somewhat 300 years ago, when profit driven economy produced and mass used them, as well as mass using other types of pollution.

Do you know what per capita means? Because today, we dont have 16 times more pollution than we did in year 1500.

Today we have thousand times more pollution, since the main sources of pollution either didnt even exist in year 1500, or werent used on a mass scale and as much per capita, per person.
Topic's author
#336
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
335
in 1700 London's air pollution was 259.74 μg/m³ and population of 0.6 million living in inner London ( or old London )

it peaked in 1894 at about 606 and a population of 4.2 million

in 2016 it was 16.00 μg/m³ and a population of 2.8 million ,

WHY?

Because air pollution controls were put into place to reduce the "human equivalency"

Type of government was irrelevant.


#337
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years.


So no, I am afraid harmful waste didnt reduce.

Also, you are cherry picking an example of London for some reason and cherry picking specifically air pollution caused by factories, but its not really a good cherry pick as factories moved to China so its not exactly a "solved problem" as much as it is "we import from China now" problem. So even that pollution still isnt solved, you just moved that pollution to the other part of the world and now you import stuff from there.
Topic's author
#338
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
336

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide is now 50 percent higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution." ( climate.gov ).

World population is 16 times larger than it was before the Industrial Revolution ( ourworldindata.org )

More people; more pollution.
#339
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
Capitalist profit driven economy invented electricity, factories, machines, cars, planes, plastic, countless chemicals, massive use of coal and many other things harmful for environment. Overwhelming majority of things harmful for environment were invented or massively used after year 1700 by the very same profit driven economy which you label as Capitalism.

The only countries on Earth which are somewhat less polluted are those in which government regulated and limited economy. All the major sources of pollution are private companies and private individuals, same is true for China which is  also a profit driven economy.

Since free market is the most profit driven economy there is, and profit driven economy leads to pollution of the environment, then capitalism pollutes the environment much more than systems which are designed to save environment, and systems designed to save environment cannot be Capitalist systems, cannot be profit driven systems.

To make it simple, profit driven systems are based on increasing output, which produces great amount of trash, waste and pollution.


Again, the trash and chemicals and waste which are the main source of pollution didnt even exist until somewhat 300 years ago, when profit driven economy produced and mass used them, as well as mass using other types of pollution.


Plastic production has sharply increased over the last 70 years. In 1950, the world produced just two million tonnes. It now produces over 450 million tonnes. Thats 225 times more.



In 1950 the world emitted 6 billion tonnes of CO2. By 1990 this had almost quadrupled, reaching more than 20 billion tonnes. Emissions have continued to grow rapidly; we now emit over 35 billion tonnes each year. Thats 6 times more, yet population didnt increase by 6 times since 1950. It merely increased by 3 times. So we have 3 times more population, yet 6 times more pollution by CO2.



The results have shown that river pollution occurs mainly due to discharges of wastewater from farms and sewers, and they have also pointed out the contamination of water with mercury and cadmium. They are especially conscious of factories operating in the steel and agricultural industries.

Rivers are polluted by mass producing chemicals which werent even being produced until profit driven economy took greater place, and now we have much greater number of chemicals finding their place in rivers and environments.

#340
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
#341
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix

Topic's author
#342
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
339,340.341

data from Economic Freedom Index and Worldpopulationreview.org

environmental pollution index composite score for  United States, Canada and Ireland  is 184.1

environmental pollution index composite score for China, India and Russia is 109.6 

Air  pollution index composite score for  United States, Canada and Ireland  is  267.2......for China, India and Russia 207.8

Water pollution index composite score for  United States, Canada and Ireland  is 279.5......for China, India and Russia 173.9

Land pollution index composite score for  United States, Canada and Ireland  is 138.4......for China, India and Russia 90.6

This data contradicts and disproves your opinions.



#343
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
The amount of plastics in the ocean has increased by 10 times since 2005.
It's from poor people who don't give a shit about the world because they live in socialist regions and are told it's all somebody else's fault/responsibility. (this includes deep blue US cities and landless rural poor)

There are rivers of trash coming out of central america.

That's not "capitalism", it's socialism, or more generally bad philosophy.
#344
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
Different countries have different pollution levels. They are all still polluting and still profit driven.
#345
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's from poor people who don't give a shit about the world
Every country has poor people, but the problem is not just in poor people.

For example, Germany recycles 50% of its plastic. All other countries recycle less, because even with severe government funding and regulations, it isnt possible right now to recycle all plastic.

Thus, plastic eventually piles up and lots of it ends up in environment.

But as we can see, the only countries who actually have lots of recycling are those where government imposed regulations and gave funding.

Still, the profit driven economy is driven to produce as much as possible, which results in lots of trash. Its an inevitable outcome of a profit driven economy.

So yeah, I see almost every river being polluted. I cant drink water from rivers unless its from the source itself. Basically, river water is now poison. It wasnt like that for thousands of years, but now it is. For thousands of years, you had many rivers which were safe to drink water from, but now cleaning products, plastic and all kinds of junk are in rivers.
#346
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,171
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
For example, Germany recycles 50% of its plastic
and they would crucify you for littering. They have a strong sense of communal responsibility.

Topic's author
#347
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
344

Your premise was that capitalism causes pollution.

I cited a source that demonstrates that your premise is incorrect.

End of story.
#348
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
I cited a source that demonstrates that your premise is incorrect.
No. You cited a source of random polluted countries, which happen to be profit driven, which is Capitalism.
Topic's author
#349
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
348

I cited a source that demonstrates that your premise is incorrect.

You responded thus:

No. You cited a source of random polluted countries, which happen to be profit driven, which is Capitalism.

Then find a source to support your false opinion.

N.B.    The sources I used took the top 3 capitalist states and compared their EPI to the 3 least capitalist states. 

Now respond only with you "source".

#350
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
The sources I used took the top 3 capitalist states and compared their EPI to the 3 least capitalist states
All countries you listed are profit driven, thus capitalists.

Topic's author
#351
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
350

The EPI was measured for 181 countries for which data was available,

The Economic Freedom Index was used to sort "most capitalist" from "least capitalist" nations.

The data is irrefutable, even though you might try.

All countries you listed are profit driven, thus capitalists.

Define "capitalist nation" using  sourced material.

Now respond only with your "source".

Your opinionated banter is in fact banal.





#352
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
The Economic Freedom Index was used to sort "most capitalist" from "least capitalist" nations
Thats again, false, since they are all capitalist countries driven by profit.

And you again ignored that less polluted countries are only those where government (not Capitalism or profit driven) acted to reduce pollution.

So giving credit to Capitalism (profit driven) for something the government did is retarded.
Topic's author
#353
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
352

The EPI was measured for 181 countries for which data was available,

The Economic Freedom Index was used to sort "most capitalist" from "least capitalist" nations.


Thats again, false, since they are all capitalist countries driven by profit.
NO! The EPI was measured for 181 countries for which data was available, without regard to type of government. The Economic Freedom Index was used to sort "most capitalist" from "least capitalist" nations.


And you again ignored that less polluted countries are only those where government (not Capitalism or profit driven) acted to reduce pollution.
The data refutes what you believe. The Economic Freedom Index was used to sort "most capitalist" from "least capitalist" nations. The MOST CAPITALIST countries scored the highest in EPI, meaning they were the "cleanest". The least capitalists scored the lowest. Now go swim in Lake Baikal !!!!!!!!


So giving credit to Capitalism (profit driven) for something the government did is retarded.
First off YOU should not be throwing around the term "retarded", for obvious reasons.

I have not "given" credit to capitalism. The data clearly does.

Now provide sources for your false opinion or F. O.  ( it might F*** Off  or it might mean Find Out )


 
#354
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,652
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@prefix
The Economic Freedom Index was used to sort "most capitalist" from "least capitalist" nations.
Again, they are all profit driven capitalist economies. So even the "least capitalist" is still capitalist. And you labeled USA as most capitalist, but USA has second highest CO2 emissions in the world, and more emissions per capita than China, but also imports a lot from China too, contributing even further to pollution. But the term "least capitalist" is again, false, since they are all profit driven capitalist economies. So they are all capitalists. There is no "least capitalist", nor did your source even meassure that, otherwise USA would be least capitalist due to biggest government in the world. And again, you ignore that pollution was reduced by forced government action and regulations, not by free market. So you still live in a lie.

Topic's author
#355
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Give me the name of just ONE non capitalist nation.

Now state their EPI

Define Capitalism.

Provide sources.

FO




#356
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@prefix
(IFF) "state-socialism" = "centralized government" (THEN) "state-socialism" is prerequisite to "state-fascism"
Topic's author
#357
prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Your mathematical operators are impeding your reasoning.

Perhaps a Venn diagram and a good history book would be better for you.