Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Sinn Fein

Nationalism - a discussion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Which is a failure of communism from its foundation, because there is no such thing a pure proletariat. (Not that other forms of government don't suffer similar types of foundational failures, because they all do) 

Exactly, and Lenin in fact recognized this, which is why he wrote that there would have to be a central committee to represent the proletariat and that this central committee would have all power. That was the theory, Lenin’s theory. 

In actuality the central committee ended up being dominated by a few individuals who took power, and those individuals ended up being dominated by one man who took sole power, and this pattern repeated itself in all 20th century Communist countries, (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Congo, etc), with the exception of the Warsaw Pact nation’s whose leaders were dictated by Moscow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And that’s the rub. The doing of it. Lenin’s Executive Committee also proves the point. Marx was saying oh hey we need to form a democratic (good) government which will grant workers all these things they deserve (super) and in order to do that we will have to take everyone’s property, suppress individual rights and it will be a bloody terror.:mellow:

Again, this is a gross oversimplification.  I’m a fan of individual property and ownership rights, but I don’t think there’s something inherently moral about ownership in that sense. And yes, any wholesale change in the basic building blocks of society is going to bring massive bloodshed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

Again, this is a gross oversimplification.  I’m a fan of individual property and ownership rights, but I don’t think there’s something inherently moral about ownership in that sense. And yes, any wholesale change in the basic building blocks of society is going to bring massive bloodshed. 

Exactly. Do we even disagree then? Communism presupposes this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Btw IIRC these fellas were sipping port off the back porch of Engels’ family estate on many of the occasions they got together...

There is always a ruling class.  Always someone with more.  Always someone better.  That is the ultimate failure of communism.

And it's not necessarily because the ideal behind the ultimate communist goal is wrong.  It's actually rather compelling.  But it's human nature.  And that doesn't mean human nature is wrong either.  We try too hard sometimes to socially engineer outcomes instead of learning how to harness the nature of man I think.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Exactly. Do we even disagree then? Communism presupposes this.

I think we disagree that theoretical communism (at least as posited by Marx) is evil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Exactly, and Lenin in fact recognized this, which is why he wrote that there would have to be a central committee to represent the proletariat and that this central committee would have all power. That was the theory, Lenin’s theory. 

In actuality the central committee ended up being dominated by a few individuals who took power, and those individuals ended up being dominated by one man who took sole power, and this pattern repeated itself in all 20th century Communist countries, (China, Vietnam, Cambodia, the Congo, etc), with the exception of the Warsaw Pact nation’s whose leaders were dictated by Moscow. 

It's the "failure" of all forms of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yankee23Fan said:

There is always a ruling class.  Always someone with more.  Always someone better.  That is the ultimate failure of communism.

And it's not necessarily because the ideal behind the ultimate communist goal is wrong.  It's actually rather compelling.  But it's human nature.  And that doesn't mean human nature is wrong either.  We try too hard sometimes to socially engineer outcomes instead of learning how to harness the nature of man I think.

Communism is interesting.  Capitalism is interesting.  Both need to be balanced by something else to be implemented for very long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

I think we disagree that theoretical communism (at least as posited by Marx) is evil. 

Well theoretically it requires taking every person’s property of any kind and all their individual rights and that is to be done by force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

There is always a ruling class.  Always someone with more.  Always someone better.  That is the ultimate failure of communism.

And it's not necessarily because the ideal behind the ultimate communist goal is wrong.  It's actually rather compelling.  But it's human nature.  And that doesn't mean human nature is wrong either.  We try too hard sometimes to socially engineer outcomes instead of learning how to harness the nature of man I think.

The ideal or goal isn’t wrong, but Marx spelled out means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Henry Ford said:

Communism is interesting.  Capitalism is interesting.  Both need to be balanced by something else to be implemented for very long. 

Government, at its most basic common form, is a see saw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well theoretically it requires taking every person’s property of any kind and all their individual rights and that is to be done by force. 

No it doesn't.  

There's a big difference between "property ownership" and "ownership of any property of any kind."

Communism reviews the sort of feudal position as its basic backup for how things get for the working class.  When they couldn't own property. But even at that point, people owned things we'd call property.  Sure, they didn't have land or houses that they could keep and legally hold against all takers, but they always had their stuff.  Even if you couldn't have "property" you had your stuff and it was yours and people weren't allowed to take it.  And "all their individual rights" is hyperbolic to the point of ridiculousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Government, at its most basic common form, is a see saw.

Hence my constant statement that liberals and conservatives are both necessary for a decent government and my lamentations at the loss of the latter and the idiocy of the former.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

It's the "failure" of all forms of government.

Not all. George Washington quit, left office after 8 years. 

I don’t think people get how important that act was, perhaps the single most important act in our history. Put any other famous General in Washington’s place: Napoleon for instance, or Simon Bolivar- and he declares himself President for life, and the Constitution becomes a meaningless piece of paper and our entire history changes. What Washington did is guarantee our future. Which is the main reason that, other than Lincoln, he is our greatest American. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Not all. George Washington quit, left office after 8 years. 

I don’t think people get how important that act was, perhaps the single most important act in our history. Put any other famous General in Washington’s place: Napoleon for instance, or Simon Bolivar- and he declares himself President for life, and the Constitution becomes a meaningless piece of paper and our entire history changes. What Washington did is guarantee our future. Which is the main reason that, other than Lincoln, he is our greatest American. 

You're becoming the Trump of the center-left.

"Most people don't know how important this was to history.  Believe me it was so important, and most people don't know.  But I do."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Not all. George Washington quit, left office after 8 years. 

I don’t think people get how important that act was, perhaps the single most important act in our history. Put any other famous General in Washington’s place: Napoleon for instance, or Simon Bolivar- and he declares himself President for life, and the Constitution becomes a meaningless piece of paper and our entire history changes. What Washington did is guarantee our future. Which is the main reason that, other than Lincoln, he is our greatest American. 

You know you are writing this to me, right?  

You can't look at the positives or negatives of a governmental form in a small window of 8 years, or one act, or one leader.  It is a concomitant results of a long history of actions, reactions, and whatnot.  And even our structure of government is inherently flawed and ripe for failure.  No one should think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

You're becoming the Trump of the center-left.

"Most people don't know how important this was to history.  Believe me it was so important, and most people don't know.  But I do."

Lol. That’s actually a feature about Trump, one of the very few, that I find rather endearing. Especially when he learns something new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Hence my constant statement that liberals and conservatives are both necessary for a decent government and my lamentations at the loss of the latter and the idiocy of the former.

Get no argument from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

No it doesn't.  

There's a big difference between "property ownership" and "ownership of any property of any kind."

Communism reviews the sort of feudal position as its basic backup for how things get for the working class.  When they couldn't own property. But even at that point, people owned things we'd call property.  Sure, they didn't have land or houses that they could keep and legally hold against all takers, but they always had their stuff.  Even if you couldn't have "property" you had your stuff and it was yours and people weren't allowed to take it.  And "all their individual rights" is hyperbolic to the point of ridiculousness.

I still don’t think this is right. The dialectic calls for state ownership of labor, capital, and the proceeds of labor. There is no personal property per se, as Pasternak said the private life is dead. Personal property such as it is is solely determined according to the state’s disposition of it. Whether it’s a tv or a mule the individual has no rights to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.<<

- Marx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I still don’t think this is right. The dialectic calls for state ownership of labor, capital, and the proceeds of labor. There is no personal property per se, as Pasternak said the private life is dead. Personal property such as it is is solely determined according to the state’s disposition of it. Whether it’s a tv or a mule the individual has no rights to it.

First, "no right to personal property" is very different from "no individual rights."

Second, he advocated the abolition of bourgeois property.  Not the traditional property enjoyed by the artisan or the peasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

>>Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.<<

- Marx.

Quote

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. 

-The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx.

The distinction between private property (capital, means of production) and personal property (your wallet, your pants) is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

-The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx.

The distinction between private property (capital, means of production) and personal property (your wallet, your pants) is important.

Transferring and consolidating property in the hands of the state is obviously not an abolition of property. Marx viewed the fruits of labor, the proceeds as being exclusively bourgeois. The concept of consumer or personal items owned by labor were antithetical to him. Did the working class ‘own’ such things? Of course but they were automatically reclassified as bourgeois things.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Transferring and consolidating property in the hands of the state is obviously not an abolition of property. Marx viewed the fruits of labor, the proceeds as being exclusively bourgeois. The concept of consumer or personal items owned by labor were antithetical to them. Did the working class ‘own’ such things? Of course but they were automatically reclassified as bourgeois things.

I'm sure that's how you've been interpreting it, but Marx's theoretical communism did not abolish personal property. Even anarchists believe in personal property.  Communism does, too, in its theoretical, Marxist form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

First, "no right to personal property" is very different from "no individual rights."

I totally understand your point, there’s no confusion, but Marxism grants social rights, not individual rights. Individual rights exist I suppose but always with the caveat they support the worker’s state. Just as an example if such rights *were contemplated then Marx wouldn’t have included a bloody terror to overhaul the social order. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

You guys remind me of a couple of leftists I knew back in college. What did Marx mean when he wrote...

I think this is a dialectic, yes. I’m just going to make a note of your comment for a future report to the committee, I’m sure you understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I totally understand your point, there’s no confusion, but Marxism grants social rights, not individual rights. Individual rights exist I suppose but always with the caveat they support the worker’s state. Just as an example if such rights *were contemplated then Mark wouldn’t have included a bloody terror to overhaul the social order. 

That's not entirely true, but it's also not entirely false.  The fact is almost all granted rights "support the state."  In every society.  And your singular focus on this "bloody terror" issue is a little weird.  Do you mean Trotsky's "Red Terror"? Marx had a very short period in which he advocated for revolutionary terror, but it was not a basic tenet of his philosophy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

That's not entirely true, but it's also not entirely false.  The fact is almost all granted rights "support the state."  In every society.  And your singular focus on this "bloody terror" issue is a little weird.  Do you mean Trotsky's "Red Terror"? Marx had a very short period in which he advocated for revolutionary terror, but it was not a basic tenet of his philosophy. 

Ha, I’m not inventing it, it’s Marx’s expressed thought. If you want to call it a short period - ok - but think of how much damage that short era of writings has caused. Also, do the math, it’s intuitively necessary to accomplish what he set out. Not the gaining of social rights of course but the acquisition of all the things he required.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ha, I’m not inventing it, it’s Marx’s expressed thought. If you want to call it a short period - ok - but think of how much damage that short era of writings has caused. Also, do the math, it’s intuitively necessary to accomplish what he set out. Not the gaining of social rights of course but the acquisition of all the things he required.

Wait, wait - there's a massive difference between a revolution of violence and the kind of "bloody terror" I assumed you were talking about.  Between the wholesale slaughter of the bourgeoisie and a civil war. I assume a civil war will be necessary to carry out a complete change in government.  But that's not the same as a campaign of terror.

Also "bloody terror" is English and he didn't write in English, so I'm asking what expressed thought you're referring to.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also "bloody terror" is English and he didn't write in English, so I'm asking what expressed thought you're referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Wait, wait - there's a massive difference between a revolution of violence and the kind of "bloody terror" I assumed you were talking about.  Between the wholesale slaughter of the bourgeoisie and a civil war. I assume a civil war will be necessary to carry out a complete change in government.  But that's not the same as a campaign of terror.

Also "bloody terror" is English and he didn't write in English, so I'm asking what expressed thought you're referring to.

Ok for example:

>>The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.<<

Obviously originally in German but I’m admittedly behind on my CDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Ok for example:

>>The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.<<

Obviously originally in German but I’m admittedly behind on my CDs.

Yes, in 1848 he used the term (apparently) in a newspaper interview.  That’s the brief period i mentioned earlier.  But it’s not the “bloody terror” statement you keep using.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Yes, in 1848 he used the term (apparently) in a newspaper interview.  That’s the brief period i mentioned earlier.  But it’s not the “bloody terror” statement you keep using.  

I’ll buy and shake hands on the brief period claim but yes that’s explicitly what he is saying there. It’s an explicitly anti-democratic statement, the parliaments didn’t cooperate so they too need to go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contextually, look what he’s responding to. After the Hungarian Revolution failed, Tsar Nicholas came in and massacred people. His response was, “We must return their brutality with brutality or we will fail.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 1:02 PM, Henry Ford said:

Contextually, look what he’s responding to. After the Hungarian Revolution failed, Tsar Nicholas came in and massacred people. His response was, “We must return their brutality with brutality or we will fail.”

I agree with the context, but I think he is referencing all of the situations of AHE, Germany and France there. The Russians supported the AHE monarchy. But Slavism was at the root of the revolution, not communism. - So, again, Nationalism.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

28 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/the-dark-legacy-of-henry-fords-anti-semitism-commentary/2014/10/10/c95b7df2-509d-11e4-877c-335b53ffe736_story.html?utm_term=.fb2fc310dff9

“You can tell Herr Ford that I am a great admirer of his,” Hitler said. “I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany. ... I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.”

http://spartacus-educational.com/GERmein.htm

While in Landsberg History read a lot of books. Most of these dealt with German history and political philosophy. Later he was to describe his spell in prison as a "free education at the state's expense." One writer who influenced Hitler while in prison was Henry Ford, the American car-manufacturer. Hitler read Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work, and a book of his called The International Jew. In the latter Ford claimed that there was a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world......

" James Pool, the author of Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power (1979) has pointed out: Not only did Hitler specifically praise Henry Ford in Mein Kampf, but many of Hitler's ideas were also a direct reflection of Ford's racist philosophy. There is a great similarity between The International Jew and Hitler's Mein Kampf, and some passages are so identical that it has been said Hitler copies directly from Ford's publication

Hey Jon, I just figured I'd move the discussion, Thanks for the response and backup. Just so you now I am dropping it in the McCain thread as it is off topic (so I hope you do the same, though I'm glad to discuss here) but Hitler and MK were directly inspired by fascists and antisemites in post-war Vienna, Munich and Italy. I think that author (Pool) is respected however that article is a piece by a writer referring to another writer (Pool) who said "it is said...". In his book the author was trying to connect the rise of naziism to modern corporatism, hence the attempt to tie in Ford to Hitler. I've read loads about early naziism and I can tell you that is beyond even a stretch. Ford makes an appearance in MK, that's it. Hitler's ideas were formed well outside the walls of Landsberg.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

 

Hey Jon, I just figured I'd move the discussion, Thanks for the response and backup. Just so you now I am dropping it in the McCain thread as it is off topic (so I hope you do the same, though I'm glad to discuss here) but Hitler and MK were directly inspired by fascists and antisemites in post-war Vienna, Munich and Italy. I think that author (Pool) is respected however that article is a piece by a writer referring to another writer (Pool) who said "it is said...". In his book the author was trying to connect the rise of naziism to modern corporatism, hence the attempt to tie in Ford to Hitler. I've read loads about early naziism and I can tell you that is beyond even a stretch. Ford makes an appearance in MK, that's it. Hitler's ideas were formed well outside thew walls of Landsberg.

It is hard to say without spending some time comparing the works.  I think blowing it off as a simple mention in the book doesn't really fly though.   Hitler did award the Grand Cross to Henry Ford and alledgedly had Ford's picture in his office.   Something about Ford inspired Hitler greatly and I would imagine the writings about Jews around the time Hitler was writing MK played a role.  Certainly Ford was not the only one spouting such ideas, but he was perhaps the most prominent.  

Now I listened to an elderly Jewish German speaking at a Holocaust museum and he claimed Ford visited Hitler in prision and personally gave the book to Hitler.   But that story seems like bunk, but it is out there.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

It is hard to say without spending some time comparing the works.  I think blowing it off as a simple mention in the book doesn't really fly though.   Hitler did award the Grand Cross to Henry Ford and alledgedly had Ford's picture in his office.   Something about Ford inspired Hitler greatly and I would imagine the writings about Jews around the time Hitler was writing MK played a role.  Certainly Ford was not the only one spouting such ideas, but he was perhaps the most prominent.  

Now I listened to an elderly Jewish German speaking at a Holocaust museum and he claimed Ford visited Hitler in prision and personally gave the book to Hitler.   But that story seems like bunk, but it is out there.  

I think that story is probably bunk. I guess my hangup was with suggesting Ford was an "inspiration" for Hitler's antisemitism. Like I said it was well formed before he ended up in prison and that whole process where he was transformed from an injured veteran who went to work for the secret police undercover to bust nazis into an actual nazi is pretty well documented. Before that he lived in flophouses and shelters like a lot of other destitute vets and that was where he really took in the ideas that we would see in MK. 

I do think you have a point though, I guess I'm just quibbling over what is an inspiration. As you point out AH obviously referred to Hitler in writing MK.

I also think it's interesting (to me) to think of Ford as a very early vein of nationalism in America. He had very romantic ideas about old America and seemed very intent on preserving that pure ideal. Obviously Jews were not a part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think that story is probably bunk. I guess my hangup was with suggesting Ford was an "inspiration" for Hitler's antisemitism. Like I said it was well formed before he ended up in prison and that whole process where he was transformed from an injured veteran who went to work for the secret police undercover to bust nazis into an actual nazi is pretty well documented. Before that he lived in flophouses and shelters like a lot of other destitute vets and that was where he really took in the ideas that we would see in MK. 

I do think you have a point though, I guess I'm just quibbling over what is an inspiration. As you point out AH obviously referred to Hitler in writing MK.

I also think it's interesting (to me) to think of Ford as a very early vein of nationalism in America. He had very romantic ideas about old America and seemed very intent on preserving that pure ideal. Obviously Jews were not a part of that.

I was not saying and did or did not mean to  imply that he inspired Hitler to be anti-Semitic.  Just some of the specific ideas of the Jewish international conspiracy that were written about which were alledgely quite similar in both works. 

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I was not saying and did bnot mean to  imply that he inspired Hitler to be anti-Semitic.  Just some of the specific ideas of the Jewish international conspiracy that were written about which were alledgely quite similar in both works. 

That's fair. And also about your larger point - I come from a Ford family. LTD's, station wagons, Mustangs, Escorts, Galaxy 500s, Fusion, Fairmont, Granada, we had it all, but it was always Ford. But it's not like it ever occurred to us, like it does to anyone else driving around in a car made by the most popular brand in the world, that 'oh hey this is the car made by the antisemite.' Ford is a legitimate American hero. His ingenuity and drive is pretty much a symbol of American pride. His home, museum, company are primary focal points and places of homage even today. Obviously people can celebrate a man's life posthumously without letting a single black spot blot out everything else. I don't think McCain has anything like Ford's antisemitism even remotely in his history but the point holds.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

That's fair. And also about your larger point - I come from a Ford family. LTD's, station wagons, Mustangs, Escorts, Galaxy 500s, Fusion, Fairmont, Granada, we had it all, but it was always Ford. But it's not like it ever occurred to us, like it does to anyone else driving around in a car made by the most popular brand in the world, that 'oh hey this is the car made by the antisemite.' Ford is a legitimate American hero. His ingenuity and drive is pretty much a symbol of American pride. His home, museum, company are primary focal points and places of homage even today. Obviously people can celebrate a man's life posthumously without letting a single black spot blot out everything else. I don't think McCain has anything like Ford's antisemitism even remotely in his history but the point holds.

More extreme examples can illustrate points better (or in some cases makes people upset).  

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Peter Baker‏Verified account @peterbakernyt

Trump at Houston rally: "You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? Nationalist. Use that word, use that word."

5:21 PM - 22 Oct 2018

 

- And that answers that.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.