Nuclear Fusion

[Sasquachulator]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

you sincerely believe humans will successfully colonize mars? lmao

You'd have to convince the qanon types that Space actually exists.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

You'd have to convince the qanon types that Space actually exists.

They believe in space. That is where the Jewish lasers are.

[Capt Spaulding]

I recently joined the “Secret Jewish Space Laser Corps.” However, I’m restricted to the Goyim Division. Lotsa cool stuff coming. Mazel Tough.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Most people don’t want to sacrifice their quality of life,

My brain seizes when I see a SUV with a Stop Climate Change sticker on the tailgate window. I don't know if they are being serious or trying to be funny.
Incomprehensible.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

My brain seizes when I see a SUV with a Stop Climate Change sticker on the tailgate window. I don't know if they are being serious or trying to be funny.
Incomprehensible.

Where I live, my Suburban qualifies as an "Alternative Fuel Vehicle" and is eligible for single occupancy driving in the carpool/commuter lanes if it is registered as such.

This is because it is FlexFuel, and technically can run on E85.

I don't personally register it as such but I do know some persons that have.

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Where I live, my Suburban qualifies as an "Alternative Fuel Vehicle" and is eligible for single occupancy driving in the carpool/commuter lanes if it is registered as such.

This is because it is FlexFuel, and technically can run on E85.

I don't personally register it as such but I do know some persons that have.

love too greenwash

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

...

It is hard to go from capitalism to a Marxist-Leninist Communist society without it appearing to be fascist, which is one of the rubs against communism. Most people consider communist societies as being totalitarian/tyrannical or authoritarian, but distinct from fascism, and they would see democratic socialism, whether truly organized as socialist or communist, as being socialist because of the democratic nature of the government, as opposed to the dictatorships associated with communism. Paper/idealized communism that Marx discussed is not what I was referring to because it is not what we have seen or possibly can see in the real world. While a totalitarian/tyrannical fascist dystopian future is possible, I don't think it is likely because of globalism, and because I don't think it is possible to retreat into our corners under fascism before trying to concur the world; fascism would likely lead to world wars that would ultimately lead to nuclear destruction, and I'm not so nihilistic or annalistic in my view of the future.

Musk, Bezos, Branson, _______ (insert rich guy of your distaste)...someone will likely lead the charge. Until traveling to Mars or mining Mars can be made into an industry for profit, I expect very wealthy individuals to be spearheading this process on their own dime, and interstellar travel is the only way we will likely survive some future astroid on a long enough timeline, so it is relevant.

That is why I make a clear distinction between Marxism-Communism and Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism and others. I consider the latter simply an alternative version of fascism. They may have started out as "dictatorships of the proletariat" but devolved into fascism. I worked with a number of individuals who styled themselves as "communist." They were, to a person, Stalinists - complete with enemies lists, purges, and professional assassinations. It was farcical. If not for the human damage they inflicted it would have made a decent satire. The damage was substantial. It was not entertaining. All are a betrayal of the core tenets of "communism." The problem is that Communism as Marx envisioned it it not possible is a society of humans. Despite our brief experiments with collectivist thinking, our innate individualist natures make the goals of utopian communism impossible to reach.

I'd like to be able to have the committed anti-materialist ideals of a Krapotkin. I don't, and don't think I could bring myself to give up the material things, BRZs and such, to which I've become attached. So, no anarcho-syndicalism for me. The best most of us can approach is democratic socialism. The sad irony is, if you ask 100 random people what any of this means, 99.5 percent will look at you like you grew a third eye.

I taught US Government to college students for close to 40 years. In 2014, for the first time in my career, I included a section on fascism in the section on ideology. I thought my father's generation had fought and died to eradicate that. Silly me.

You seem to find this interesting. If you haven't seen it, the movie "The Death of Stalin" is a funny take on some of it. And Jason Stanley's How Fascism Works is a rally good look at the modern incarnations it takes.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

That is why I make a clear distinction between Marxism-Communism and Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism and others. I consider the latter simply an alternative version of fascism. They may have started out as "dictatorships of the proletariat" but devolved into fascism. I worked with a number of individuals who styled themselves as "communist." They were, to a person, Stalinists - complete with enemies lists, purges, and professional assassinations. It was farcical. If not for the human damage they inflicted it would have made a decent satire. The damage was substantial. It was not entertaining. All are a betrayal of the core tenets of "communism." The problem is that Communism as Marx envisioned it it not possible is a society of humans. Despite our brief experiments with collectivist thinking, our innate individualist natures make the goals of utopian communism impossible to reach.

I'd like to be able to have the committed anti-materialist ideals of a Krapotkin. I don't, and don't think I could bring myself to give up the material things, BRZs and such, to which I've become attached. So, no anarcho-syndicalism for me. The best most of us can approach is democratic socialism. The sad irony is, if you ask 100 random people what any of this means, 99.5 percent will look at you like you grew a third eye.

I taught US Government to college students for close to 40 years. In 2014, for the first time in my career, I included a section on fascism in the section on ideology. I thought my father's generation had fought and died to eradicate that. Silly me.

You seem to find this interesting. If you haven't seen it, the movie "The Death of Stalin" is a funny take on some of it. And Jason Stanley's How Fascism Works is a rally good look at the modern incarnations it takes.

I haven't seen that movie, so I'll put it on my list. I do like political science, philosophy, psychology, sociology/anthropology, etc. There is little I'm not interested in when it comes to human behavior.

There is little doubt in my mind that the world will have to create a new type of government and a new way to structure society to survive the future in order to maintain stability. There really doesn't seem to be much middle ground in a world with android/robots and AI without some type of utopian UBI. Fascism/imperialism is a possible future, and we have seen a rise in fascist rhetoric in my countries, but it is temporary solution to a cyclical problem that ultimately fails on a long enough timeline. Marxist-communism is a more likely future, but like I said, and I think you agree, communist movements are never pure and ultimately overlap with fascism through the necessary regime change. Ultimately, power corrupts unless you have an idealist like a Bernie or FDR who is for the people, but that is easy to falsify, as we have seen throughout history and most recently. Maybe with a pressing need like avoid global annihilation would the path be so clear and necessary that everyone would have to work together. Fascism becomes appealing in these situations, but my bet would be to the contrary. Fascist tend to be conservatives who point to an enemy and sway people on the idea that society can revert to better times, but I don't think that mindset fixes the future problems we have discussed. What we did in the past is what got us to our present situations, and we can't blame ideologies or social issues on the problems we will face in the future. Society will be relying on progressive innovated thinking, which isn't what fascism represents. Is that making sense?

[Spuds]

Judging by the lack of regard for rules in this thread, I would have guessed we were all anarchists.

Don't mind me, carry on.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Is that making sense?

Yes. This is why I should be leader of the world.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Judging by the lack of regards for rules in this thread, I would have guessed we were all anarchists.

Popular media portrays anarchy as chaos and disorder. "Omg! Did you see the riots? It was total anarchy!"
My impression of "proper" anarchy is there are no/very few rules because people would do what needs to be done without having to be told.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

Judging by the lack of regards for rules in this thread, I would have guessed we were all anarchists.

Don't mind me, carry on.

It is more of a political science conversation than a conversation about politics. More of a George Orwellian conversation than something from New York Times.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Popular media portrays anarchy as chaos and disorder. "Omg! Did you see the riots? It was total anarchy!"
My impression of "proper" anarchy is there are no/very few rules because people would do what needs to be done without having to be told.

I think both definitions apply to anarchy. Spuds is using anarchy to describe our behavior during a discussion about -isms to make pun.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

Popular media portrays anarchy as chaos and disorder. "Omg! Did you see the riots? It was total anarchy!"
My impression of "proper" anarchy is there are no/very few rules because people would do what needs to be done without having to be told.

One of the funniest, perhaps more realistic, takes on this is the “Constitutional Peasants” scene from Monty Python’s “Holy Grail.”