Oh ok. But my point was when we are deciding whether to label someone a nutter the fervour of the belief and they're willingness to act as though it were true is the main thing. More than the actual content of the belief
Well OK but probably the content is relevant in terms of the effect on society. Like an intense belief in the power of Jungle is less of a problem than an intense belief in paedogeddon.
Also as far as I can remember sociopaths don’t necessarily have any coherent beliefs at all and they are whacko.
You lot are unreal . Modern capitalism is only possible because of the extreme competence and expertise of large organisations
In the light of today, nineteenth century capitalism appears to have been an ‘undeveloped’ capitalism, not fully emancipated from its feudalistic past. Capitalism, challenging not exploitation but only the monopolistic position of a particular form of exploitation, could truly unfold itself ‘within the shell’ of the old society. Its revolutionary actions were aimed at governmental control merely in order to break through feudalism’s restrictive borders and to secure capitalistic liberties. The capitalists were thoroughly occupied with and satisfied by their extension of world trade, their creation of the proletariat and industry and their accumulation of capital. ’Economic freedom’ was their chief concern and as long as the state supported their exploitative social position, the state’s composition and separateness were none of their concern. The relative independence of the state was not a main characteristic of capitalism, however, but merely an expression of capitalistic growth within incomplete capitalistic conditions. The further development of capitalism implied the capitalisation of the state.
The atomisation of society requires an all-encompassing state organisation. The socialists and Bolsheviks considered capitalist society inefficiently organised with regard to production and exchange and in other, extra-economic respects. The emphasis on organisation was emphasis on social control. Socialism was to be first of all the rational organisation of the whole of society. And an efficiently organised society excludes, of course, unforeseen activities capable of issuing into spontaneous occurrences. The spontaneous element in society was to disappear with the planning of production and the centralistically-determined distribution of goods. Not only the Bolsheviks, but the fascists, too, spoke of spontaneity only so long as their power was not absolute. When all existing social layers submitted to their authority, they became society’s most thorough organisers. And it was precisely this organising activity that they designated with the term socialism.
The contradiction between class structure and productive forces remains, however, and therewith the inescapability of crisis and war. Although the inactivated masses can no longer resist totalitarianism in traditional organised fashion, and although they have not evolved new weapons and forms of action adequate to the new tasks, the contradictions of the social class structure remain unresolved. While giving temporary security, the terroristic authoritarian system also reflects the increasing insecurity of totalitarian capitalism. The defence of the status quo violates the status quo by releasing new, uncontrolled, or uncontrollable activities. The most powerful controls over men are really weak when compared with the tremendous contradictions that rend the world today. Though all contradictions now oppose one organisation, capitalist society was never so badly organised as it is now when it is completely organised.
There's nothing you can do.
Same is true of conspiracy theories. It’s all just mildly irritating until someone shows up with a gun at a pizza restaurant.
There's an extent to which it don't even matter. Most of my cousins are like that and they get on with their lives. Ones a successful academic. Mad, but providing you can compartmentalise it it's usually not too disruptive.