China a fascist state? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044796
late wrote:2) The modern world is a result of cooperation between government, business, and knowledge institutions. You can say you are using capitalism to get to socialism; but what I hear is wishful thinking. China is following a well established pattern in Asia, capitalism with autocratic rule.

China desires to trade with other nations in Asia such as Japan, South Korea, DPRK, Russia, Vietnam, and Laos. They are trading with each other due to various needs of natural resources, labour needs, and exchanges of talented labour, such as medical assistance or engineering.
3) Of course, but nowhere near as much as was the case in Soviet Russia.

The Chinese economy is less nationalized because its government is run by revisionists, unlike the Soviet Union.
4) You keep saying that, and while it is funny, it's quite impossible to take seriously. We have a saying that describes what you are doing: Blame the victim.

Usually when people become victimized, it is their fault. They are offending the politics of their leaders. Socialists got oppressed under the Tsar in the Russian Empire because they offended the non socialist politics of the Tsar. So they left the Tsar, but could not leave the land, because other nations, such as the German Empire, or Austria-Hungary, were also under capitalist and monarchist rule. So how did they get away from the Tsar? By overthrowing their capitalist power and establishing a socialist government.
Soviet Russia was an autocratic bureaucracy. Most of the things it said about itself were not true. It wasn't socialist or communist. The people were brutally repressed.

Look at Russia today - Crime, graffiti, neo Nazi gangs, domestic abuse defended by capitalist economic rule, and home break ins. I would rather live under an "oppressor" then be "free" around those who can do whatever they want to or around me. Many of the people in the Soviet Union are aggressive due to their culture or eugenics. This is a characteristic of how they are not socialists - They are masculine, and need religion to motivate them from not going crazy and causing crime or social chaos.

Russia is far worse because of all the criminals that are roaming around.
There is potential in a discussion about how we might create a country that was actually socialist.

A socialist country cannot be "created" unless the majority of the occupants/population are socialists. A socialist economy composed of a non socialist people majority would turn into a catastrophe - The Balkans is a great example. Where crime, mob culture, mafias, and neo Nazism dominate the crime infested streets.
There are a lot of ideas, what I don't see is much interest in turning them into reality.

Socialism is not an "idea." This is a non socialist viewpoint of socialism. This is due to non socialists not being able to fully understand socialism, thus labeling socialism as an "idea" to make it easier for them and other non socialists to comprehend. Socialism is an ideology, but not an "idea."

Socialism is gaining real consciousness. Realizing that religion, family, marriage, money, and the concepts of value and social hierarchies were created by elites to manipulate the masses, to prevent them from realizing that they are under class rule for economic exploitation and to be controlled. Religion manipulates people by preventing them from going against the bourgeoisie. It does so in a deep, psychological, subconscious manner, that could take multiple generations to get away from. This is why the Soviet Union accepted religion more in its earlier years (1920's to the 1950's, coming from a religious Russian Empire). Family is a manipulative tool that is used to keep the masses distracted, stressed, and less healthy, since family is the first thing that brings one down, and people who are more family oriented tend to live shorter lives with more heart problems due to the regular stresses that family conditions onto each other, but they do not realize that because they lack real consciousness. The Soviet Union was family oriented, Stalin promoted the family institution. Many people there needed family nurturing to motivate them to work because they are not socialists.

Social hierarchies are manipulated onto people since they come out of their mothers' wombs. They are manipulated, taught, nurtured, socially conditioned, and "peer pressured." One cause of socially manipulated social hierarchies is a masculine culture, which Stalin also promoted. A socially masculine culture, which is what both the Soviet Union and the United States (anti socialist since the 1940's) promoted a competitive, following to follower environment, where both women and men were socially alienated.

The people in Russia and in Eastern Europe are more socialist psychologically than Americans. Social Media, which is capitalist culture and products, proves this. vk, a Russian website, is not as competitive as American website Facebook. vk does not value things and alienates its members as much as American Facebook does.
By late
#15044802
SSDR wrote:
1) China desires to trade with other nations in Asia such as Japan, South Korea, DPRK, Russia, Vietnam, and Laos. They are trading with each other due to various needs of natural resources, labour needs, and exchanges of talented labour, such as medical assistance or engineering.

2) The Chinese economy is less nationalized because its government is run by revisionists, unlike the Soviet Union.

3) Usually when people become victimized, it is their fault.

4) Look at Russia today - Crime, graffiti, neo Nazi gangs, domestic abuse defended by capitalist economic rule, and home break ins. I would rather live under an "oppressor" then be "free" around those who can do whatever they want to or around me. Many of the people in the Soviet Union are aggressive due to their culture or eugenics. This is a characteristic of how they are not socialists - They are masculine, and need religion to motivate them from not going crazy and causing crime or social chaos.


5) Socialism is not an "idea." This is a non socialist viewpoint of socialism. This is due to non socialists not being able to fully understand socialism, thus labeling socialism as an "idea" to make it easier for them and other non socialists to comprehend. Socialism is an ideology, but not an "idea."




1) So not the point... China has an autocrat ruler, and of course, the bureaucracy. There isn't anything there I would call socialist. For the people? You can't even drink the water. There are more ways in which China is not "for the people" than I want to type.

2) Not sure what you mean by revisionist.

3) Sometimes it is their fault. But often it's just crappy luck to be born somewhere like Russia.

4) The economy imploded. Even in the best of circumstances, it's a long hard road to build an economy in a place as bad off as Russia was after the Soviet government collapsed.

5) Everything starts as an idea. I need for you to describe *exactly* how socialism works. For example, if America wanted to become socialist, how would we go about doing that?
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044804
late wrote:1) So not the point... China has an autocrat ruler, and of course, the bureaucracy. There isn't anything there I would call socialist. For the people? You can't even drink the water. There are more ways in which China is not "for the people" than I want to type.

China's economy is not socialist, but the socialist government is making it like that on purpose as a scientific process to toughen the people up, for them to gain more real consciousness.
2) Not sure what you mean by revisionist.

After Mao's death in 1976, the Chinese government introduced various revisionist policies that made what China is today. Mao was not a revisionist, he was an anti revisionist. His policies that China had from the 1950's to his death were a different way for China to achieve socialism.
3) Sometimes it is their fault. But often it's just crappy luck to be born somewhere like Russia.

"Ignorance is Bliss."
4) The economy imploded. Even in the best of circumstances, it's a long hard road to build an economy in a place as bad off as Russia was after the Soviet government collapsed.

Yes, when the Soviet Union collapsed, everything was destroyed. That is capitalism.
5) Everything starts as an idea. I need for you to describe *exactly* how socialism works. For example, if America wanted to become socialist, how would we go about doing that?

If the States wants to be socialist, the first step is for the people to be socialists.

Americans are some of the most anti socialist people ever. Their infrastructure was set up on purpose since the 1950's to manipulate their masses into hating socialism. Americans do not understand socialism.

If the American people are socialist, they can change their economics into a socialist leaning one.
By late
#15044808
SSDR wrote:
China's economy is not socialist, but the socialist government is making it like that on purpose as a scientific process to toughen the people up, for them to gain more real consciousness.

After Mao's death in 1976, the Chinese government introduced various revisionist policies that made what China is today. Mao was not a revisionist, he was an anti revisionist. His policies that China had from the 1950's to his death were a different way for China to achieve socialism.

"Ignorance is Bliss."

Yes, when the Soviet Union collapsed, everything was destroyed. That is capitalism.

If the States wants to be socialist, the first step is for the people to be socialists.

Americans are some of the most anti socialist people ever. Their infrastructure was set up on purpose since the 1950's to manipulate their masses into hating socialism. Americans do not understand socialism.

If the American people are socialist, they can change their economics into a socialist leaning one.



I asked for an explanation, not more repetition.

I don't think you can, your mythology is riddled with internal contradictions. That doesn't single China out, my country's mythology is even more riddled with contradictions than yours. Although I must confess I didn't count, that's just my impression.

The Soviet economy was doomed the day it started. Even now, with all the information technology we have today, we don't have the ability to run a command economy in every detail, the way the Soviet system tried to do.

You can try to blame us, and I do think we should have done something like the Marshall Plan to help Russia recover. But they did most of that to themselves.

Mao was a dictator, millions died as a result of his incompetence. That is anti-Socialist.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044817
late wrote:The Soviet economy was doomed the day it started.

Incorrect. The Soviet Union increased the standards of living for many Russian workers. The Soviet Union's life expectancy rates increased. Education, health care, and agriculture went up. The average body mass index increased (photographs of people in the Soviet Union are slightly fatter then they were in the Russian Empire where they were skinnier).

The Soviet Union industrialized at a rapid rate at approximately 10 years after its formation. They had a very strong armoured military due to their rapid industrialization. The Soviet Union also launched the first spacecraft into outer space, Sputnik, in 1957. By the late 1970's, some of the educational sectors of the Soviet Union were more advanced than the United States.
Even now, with all the information technology we have today, we don't have the ability to run a command economy in every detail, the way the Soviet system tried to do.

A "command economy" is not a definition of socialism. A capitalist caricature of economic socialism is a "command economy," in capitalism, enterprises command their wage workers. In capitalism, people being forced to rely on their families out of economic instituting is commanding.
You can try to blame us, and I do think we should have done something like the Marshall Plan to help Russia recover.

The United States has tried to destroy socialism within themselves, and outside of themselves since the 1950's. This is because the States is fiercely anti socialist, culturally, politically, and economically. The States has psychologically brainwashed its populace via media, workplace policies, and the promotion of a Christian family environment just to go against socialism. In 1954, they added "under god" in their Pledge of Allegiance to manipulate their populace to go against socialism. Externally, the United States supported various anti socialist organizations such as South Korea, South Vietnam, and Islamic group Al Qaeda. They decreased trade with Cuba after the overthrow of the Fulgencio Batista dicatatorship.
But they did most of that to themselves.

Because the majority of the people in the Soviet Union were not socialists. Their populace was composed of monarchists, neo Nazis, Islamic terrorists, conservatives, liberals, and even anarchists.
Mao was a dictator, millions died as a result of his incompetence.

Mao liberated his people from patriarchy, illiteracy, religious control, and the family institution.
That is anti-Socialist.

Anarchy is anti socialist.
By late
#15044820
SSDR wrote:
1) Incorrect.

2) The Soviet Union industrialized at a rapid rate at approximately 10 years after its formation. They had a very strong armoured military due to their rapid industrialization. The Soviet Union also launched the first spacecraft into outer space, Sputnik, in 1957. By the late 1970's, some of the educational sectors of the Soviet Union were more advanced than the United States.

3) A "command economy" is not a definition of socialism.

4) Because the majority of the people in the Soviet Union were not socialists. Their populace was composed of monarchists, neo Nazis, Islamic terrorists, conservatives, liberals, and even anarchists.

5) Mao liberated his people from patriarchy, illiteracy, religious control, and the family institution.




1) What you said is true, and carefully avoids the obvious fact that there was a complete economic collapse.

2) Also true, but eventually the mismanagement of the economy forced it into decline. Also Lend Lease had a lot of do with the development of it's tank manufacturing. Although I have to admit, the tanks they made with our technology were better than our tanks.

3) Never said it was.. but it does go show that they weren't Socialist.

4) No government has ever been Socialist. You can't even provide a functional definition of Socialism. It's an ideal, and a good idea, but no one yet has even gotten close.

5) That was closer to enslavement than liberation. Something else that is amusing, after Mao died they changed because they knew they were heading for another of China's infamous collapses into chaos and warlordism...

Btw, do you play Go? How do you feel about Go playing such an important role in Chinese education? I can often see the influence of Go in China's strategy.
#15044824
I am sitting here reading through this debate between @SSDR and @late .

I wonder what backgrounds these two have? @late seems like some kind of liberal to me. And @SSDR has some ideas I never even heard of before.

Chinese culture is with such depth that trying to scratch the surface of that nation's goings on for centuries is for the truly dedicated.

Maoism is a movement in South America. Many native Peruvian, Bolivian, etc communities follow Maoist philosophies. I find it all very interesting.

Mao's Little Red Book. An interesting read.

So many people hate Mao. Mostly liberals I would say hate him deeply.

Kissinger, Nixon, and many others saw him as someone they could negotiate with....it is very interesting.
By late
#15044828
Tainari88 wrote:
I wonder what backgrounds these two have? @late seems like some kind of liberal to me. And @SSDR has some ideas I never even heard of before.

Chinese culture is with such depth that trying to scratch the surface of that nation's goings on for centuries is for the truly dedicated.

Maoism is a movement in South America. Many native Peruvian, Bolivian, etc communities follow Maoist philosophies. I find it all very interesting.

Mao's Little Red Book. An interesting read.

So many people hate Mao. Mostly liberals I would say hate him deeply.

Kissinger, Nixon, and many others saw him as someone they could negotiate with....it is very interesting.



I am an East Coast intellectual.

Yes, China, it's culture, even it's language is complex and layered.

SSDR seems to be talking from a Chinese perspective, the official interpretation.. We are talking about when Mao ran the country, not anything in South America.

I would guess the only people that actually hate Mao are old Right wing ideologues.

Kissinger wanted to play China against Russia. It worked, although there was a price to pay when republican ambitions ran into economic realities.
#15044832
late wrote:I am an East Coast intellectual.

Yes, China, it's culture, even it's language is complex and layered.

SSDR seems to be talking from a Chinese perspective, the official interpretation.. We are talking about when Mao ran the country, not anything in South America.

I would guess the only people that actually hate Mao are old Right wing ideologues.

Kissinger wanted to play China against Russia. It worked, although there was a price to pay when republican ambitions ran into economic realities.


I have no idea where SSDR is from and what kind of Communism she or he is into? I just wish people would introduce themselves so one could have productive debates with them instead of having to try to figure out their contradictions as one goes along.

I guess I am lamenting I don't have the necessary time to read enough people on here thoroughly to understand what they are about @late .

East Coast Intellectual? Like what? Jewish one in his forties who works for NYU or something?

I wish you would just say which people you have read and which political thoughts you find the most truth filled for you? That is very helpful.
By late
#15044842
Tainari88 wrote:
I have no idea where SSDR is from and what kind of Communism she or he is into? I just wish people would introduce themselves so one could have productive debates with them instead of having to try to figure out their contradictions as one goes along.

I guess I am lamenting I don't have the necessary time to read enough people on here thoroughly to understand what they are about @late .

East Coast Intellectual? Like what? Jewish one in his forties who works for NYU or something?

I wish you would just say which people you have read and which political thoughts you find the most truth filled for you? That is very helpful.



Atheist, family is Protestant or Baptist. I am retired, and live in Maine. I started reading the NYT in high school and developed an interest in foreign affairs at the same time. I was politically active fairly often.

In terms of what I like... I like Stiglitz. I like Jane Jacobs, esp. Cities and the Wealth of Nations. I like history, but the more modern style like Braudel's Civilisation and Capitalism 15th - 18th Century. Start with Vol 2, Wheels of Commerce.

I love scifi, and esp. The Expanse books.

https://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Wakes-James-S-Corey/dp/0316129089/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2IT6B5EJTHPM&keywords=leviathan+wakes&qid=1572118954&s=books&sprefix=leviathan%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Wakes-James-S-Corey/dp/0316129089/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2IT6B5EJTHPM&keywords=leviathan+wakes&qid=1572118954&s=books&sprefix=leviathan%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-3


https://www.amazon.com/s?k=cities+and+the+wealth+of+nations&crid=F38Q3N4XO0Y0&sprefix=cities+and+the+w%2Caps%2C148&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_16

https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-Capitalism-15th-18th/dp/0060150912/ref=sr_1_2?crid=29DEP8AY67TYA&keywords=wheels+of+commerce&qid=1572118708&sprefix=wheels+of+commme%2Caudible%2C151&sr=8-2
#15044852
late wrote:Atheist, family is Protestant or Baptist. I am retired, and live in Maine. I started reading the NYT in high school and developed an interest in foreign affairs at the same time. I was politically active fairly often.

In terms of what I like... I like Stiglitz. I like Jane Jacobs, esp. Cities and the Wealth of Nations. I like history, but the more modern style like Braudel's Civilisation and Capitalism 15th - 18th Century. Start with Vol 2, Wheels of Commerce.

I love scifi, and esp. The Expanse books.

https://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Wakes-James-S-Corey/dp/0316129089/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2IT6B5EJTHPM&keywords=leviathan+wakes&qid=1572118954&s=books&sprefix=leviathan%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Leviathan-Wakes-James-S-Corey/dp/0316129089/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2IT6B5EJTHPM&keywords=leviathan+wakes&qid=1572118954&s=books&sprefix=leviathan%2Cstripbooks%2C148&sr=1-3


https://www.amazon.com/s?k=cities+and+the+wealth+of+nations&crid=F38Q3N4XO0Y0&sprefix=cities+and+the+w%2Caps%2C148&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_16

https://www.amazon.com/Wheels-Commerce-Civilization-Capitalism-15th-18th/dp/0060150912/ref=sr_1_2?crid=29DEP8AY67TYA&keywords=wheels+of+commerce&qid=1572118708&sprefix=wheels+of+commme%2Caudible%2C151&sr=8-2



I love scifi too. We have that in common.

I never read Stigler. I have read Richard Reich and I like Richard Wolff the Marxist economist. Adam Smith and Keynes and all the rest like John Locke and so on? Read them all.

Are you one of those compassionate capitalists? Someone who thinks capitalism can be re-fashioned to be compassionate?

I would love to read Stigler but I am in Mexico. Deep South. And most of the books in English sold in bookstores are very expensive here and rarely have such titles. I can order it through Amazon? But that is tough, they go through Mexico City and almost all books in Mexico are expensive. English ones especially. That is why I hit the public library in my city and what they have that I have not read. Otherwise it will pauper you here.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15044856
late wrote:2) Also true, but eventually the mismanagement of the economy forced it into decline. Also Lend Lease had a lot of do with the development of it's tank manufacturing. Although I have to admit, the tanks they made with our technology were better than our tanks.

Soviet tanks are more simple than American tanks. American tanks are complicated and obsolete. Soviet tanks are obsolete and less effective. The Soviet Union had a very large population with lots of natural resources, and land (to build tank factories). The United States also has a large population with a huge industry, but Americans are known to have better aircraft than the Soviet Union.
4) No government has ever been Socialist. You can't even provide a functional definition of Socialism. It's an ideal, and a good idea, but no one yet has even gotten close.

Correct. Pure socialism has not existed yet. However, various socialist countries used some non socialist economics to reach socialism, the Soviet Union, and China being some examples.
5) That was closer to enslavement than liberation.

Letting all of those non socialists live freely and destroy the socialist economy is enslavement to socialism.
Something else that is amusing, after Mao died they changed because they knew they were heading for another of China's infamous collapses into chaos and warlordism...

Chaos and warlordism caused by non socialists that have not been exterminated.
Btw, do you play Go? How do you feel about Go playing such an important role in Chinese education? I can often see the influence of Go in China's strategy.

I do not know too much about the game "Go." The two reasons why China may win is because of its large population, and huge industry.
By late
#15044858
SSDR wrote:
I do not know too much about the game "Go." The two reasons why China may win is because of its large population, and huge industry.



Best game in the world, and an important part of Chinese culture. I have a book on how important Go is to China.

The trick is to craft a good working relationship with China that will let us negotiate the coming transition without another world war.

Good luck.
Last edited by late on 26 Oct 2019 23:47, edited 1 time in total.
By late
#15044859
Tainari88 wrote:
Are you one of those compassionate capitalists? Someone who thinks capitalism can be re-fashioned to be compassionate?



There used to be a saying, before the return of the robber barons. "A rising tide lifts all boats."

IOW, a healthy economy provided plenty of jobs, and good pay. Now the rich hog most of it.

I don't see this as compassion. If you think of a nation as being like a human body, cutting off lifeblood to any part will cause the entire body problems.
#15044989
late wrote:There used to be a saying, before the return of the robber barons. "A rising tide lifts all boats."

IOW, a healthy economy provided plenty of jobs, and good pay. Now the rich hog most of it.

I don't see this as compassion. If you think of a nation as being like a human body, cutting off lifeblood to any part will cause the entire body problems.


Capitalism has owners and non owners. Workers who sell their labor because they don't really own outright any property. They pay banks for their cars, their homes and their food bills are sometimes on debit or credit cards and the banks get a cut of that. Lifeblood are people working for a living creating wealth for others to live off of late. They pay taxes, they pay corporations who sell them things, they are producing en masse.

The rich hog most of it because that is what the rich do under capitalist systems. The Left are the ones who negotiate something decent for workers after a long battle with violence and problems. The capitalists got to 'share'the crumbs and then they look for ways to undermine what was gained with blood, sweat and tears for a long time.....the Left keeps pressuring for safe working conditions, eight hour work days, benefits, and higher base wages, etc. the Right and the Capitalists keep wanting to give less and less and take more and more. It is a never ending battle. They want the government to pay for medicaid because they don't want to pay high enough wages for the workers to be able to be covered by the insurance companies. Let the taxpayers pay, let the food coupon government pay for low wage workers being short on groceries at the end of the month. Private greed forever.

I think any system where there are going to be owner and non owners and private property concepts based on access to power and money in unjust human power relationships will be problematic and unstable. It is not lifeblood late. It is like slaveowners who keep saying, "Don't end the slavery system. From now on we will be nice and feed the slaves better diets, we will keep them well dressed, make sure their roofs don't leak and let them keep their children and don't let them feel their kids are being auctioned off to pay our debts." Compassionate slavery. The abolishinists had the correct line of thinking. If you keep that concept of human beings being property and treated under the law like cattle? It doesn't matter how well the slave master treats them. The entire premise of the system is fundamentally flawed.

Capitalism is not new and it did emerge as a step up from feudalism. But it is not the best system invented by humaniy of all time for every form of economic and social organization. It is not the answer. Simply because it stems from one large group being submitted to the power of another group who's interests are in constant conflict. It is about denying rights and forcing the entire society to be built around who owns and who doesn't. Who invests and who can't. Who sells labor and who doesn't have to sell their labor....

It is about power. And capitalists won't give up power if they have both the money, the profits and the ownership. They are by law forced to consider profit first above human needs. It doesn't allow for complete investment of all resources and wealth to serve not the small group of owners...but to serve the needs of all workers. That is my issue with capitalism. It is about inequality. Make it about equality and capitalism has a future. So far? It is not a system about that at all.
By late
#15045064
Tainari88 wrote:
The rich hog most of it because that is what the rich do under capitalist systems.



That varies a lot from country to country, prob a measure of how corrupt they are.

Image
#15045073
late wrote:That varies a lot from country to country, prob a measure of how corrupt they are.

Image


How many of those nations have a very strong Left and very strong socialist safety net systems and don't allow enormous gaps Late?

More socialism that is well done less problems. That is a fact. I hate corruption. It is problematic. But? Capitalist systems are not the panacea for humankind. It is not.

Chile tried to do a non corrupt mixed economy with Allende and he got a coup for his trouble.

Mexico got sick of the PRI and the PAN corrupt ones and now have a socialist in charge and the income for the lowest paid workers and the retirement checks for the older Mexican workers were doubled and continue to get better. More socialism and less greed with the rawhide Capitalist takers? The better things get. That is the reality.

Corruption has to do with many factors. In Mexico it is very much tied to poverty and to governments that never spent enough on education, training and infrastructure. It stayed in these very very small group of extremely rich sellout corrupt elites. The USA is headed in the direction.

The difference is that the Mexicans are not duped by some billionaire corrupt freak like Trump. They put in a socialist and over sixty something percent of Mexican voters say AMLO is doing a very good job combating corruption.

The USA needs a strong socialist that will spank banks, wall street, the Koch brothers, not spend on wars, and reign in irresponsible government. But the American psyche is a nightmare of lack of political thought. They are going to hit bottom beyond Turkey, Mexico and Chile in corruption.....in order to begin to change. It might be too late by then.

https://twitter.com/21WIRE/status/1203982077072416[…]

You need to do two things BS. You need to actuall[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

^^^ Love to read the comments from The Daily Mail,[…]

TV antenna tip

If you have “cut the cord” and use a TV antenna to[…]