European Fascism Is Different This Time, Says the New York Times

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A recent New York Times article bemoans the rise of populist parties in European countries, which are stridently nativist and nationalist. In Denmark, some polls show that the Danish People’s Party is now more popular than the incumbent Social Democrats. Likewise, a recent poll indicates that the National Front, founded by the notorious Jean-Marie Le Pen and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen, is the most popular party in France. According to the article such “disruptive upstart groups” are also making inroads in Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands.

The article hastens to assure readers, however, that, aside from Greece and maybe Hungary, ”The trend in Europe does not signal the return of fascist demons from the 1930s.” Why no cause for concern? You see ”Europe’s populists want to strengthen, not shrink, government and see the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities.” These parties tap into ”a curious mix of right-wing identity politics and left-wing anxieties about the future of the welfare state.” In making such an argument the author of the article, Andrew Higgins, demonstrates his complete innocence of any historical or doctrinal knowledge of the phenomenon of fascism.

European Fascism Is Different This Time, Says the New York Times :: The Circle Bastiat

Essentially points out how fascism and socialism, or social democracy if you like, are, if not the exact same thing, first cousins.

 

[oldfart]

A recent New York Times article bemoans the rise of populist parties in European countries, which are stridently nativist and nationalist. In Denmark, some polls show that the Danish People’s Party is now more popular than the incumbent Social Democrats. Likewise, a recent poll indicates that the National Front, founded by the notorious Jean-Marie Le Pen and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen, is the most popular party in France. According to the article such “disruptive upstart groups” are also making inroads in Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands.

The article hastens to assure readers, however, that, aside from Greece and maybe Hungary, ”The trend in Europe does not signal the return of fascist demons from the 1930s.” Why no cause for concern? You see ”Europe’s populists want to strengthen, not shrink, government and see the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities.” These parties tap into ”a curious mix of right-wing identity politics and left-wing anxieties about the future of the welfare state.” In making such an argument the author of the article, Andrew Higgins, demonstrates his complete innocence of any historical or doctrinal knowledge of the phenomenon of fascism.

European Fascism Is Different This Time, Says the New York Times :: The Circle Bastiat

Essentially points out how fascism and socialism, or social democracy if you like, are, if not the exact same thing, first cousins.

First, the defining differences between the socialist movements and fascist movements is that socialist movements tend to be internationalist and focused on class issues whereas fascist movements tend to be particularist and nationalist, emphasizing corporatism, anti-socialism, and ethnic identifications, downplaying the role of class. I'm not sure this makes them first cousins, I think the relationship is further out on the family tree.

The greatest similarity is that both socialism and corporatist fascism have extreme forms which become anti-democratic. In furtherance of larger concepts like the "working class" or "the Volk" they justify the oppression of flesh-and-blood people.

Do I think this is a problem in Europe today? Hell yes! It's a problem in America too. It's fueled by lousy economic conditions and will only grow and become more politically and socially destabilizing until underlying economic conditions improve.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . .points out how fascism and socialism, or social democracy if you like, are, if not the exact same thing, first cousins.

Social market democracy includes a mixture of fascism and socialism as government regulation protects democratic capitalism.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

democratic capitalism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A recent New York Times article bemoans the rise of populist parties in European countries, which are stridently nativist and nationalist. In Denmark, some polls show that the Danish People’s Party is now more popular than the incumbent Social Democrats. Likewise, a recent poll indicates that the National Front, founded by the notorious Jean-Marie Le Pen and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen, is the most popular party in France. According to the article such “disruptive upstart groups” are also making inroads in Austria, Britain, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland and the Netherlands.

The article hastens to assure readers, however, that, aside from Greece and maybe Hungary, ”The trend in Europe does not signal the return of fascist demons from the 1930s.” Why no cause for concern? You see ”Europe’s populists want to strengthen, not shrink, government and see the welfare state as an integral part of their national identities.” These parties tap into ”a curious mix of right-wing identity politics and left-wing anxieties about the future of the welfare state.” In making such an argument the author of the article, Andrew Higgins, demonstrates his complete innocence of any historical or doctrinal knowledge of the phenomenon of fascism.

European Fascism Is Different This Time, Says the New York Times :: The Circle Bastiat

Essentially points out how fascism and socialism, or social democracy if you like, are, if not the exact same thing, first cousins.

First, the defining differences between the socialist movements and fascist movements is that socialist movements tend to be internationalist and focused on class issues whereas fascist movements tend to be particularist and nationalist, emphasizing corporatism, anti-socialism, and ethnic identifications, downplaying the role of class. I'm not sure this makes them first cousins, I think the relationship is further out on the family tree.

The greatest similarity is that both socialism and corporatist fascism have extreme forms which become anti-democratic. In furtherance of larger concepts like the "working class" or "the Volk" they justify the oppression of flesh-and-blood people.

Do I think this is a problem in Europe today? Hell yes! It's a problem in America too. It's fueled by lousy economic conditions and will only grow and become more politically and socially destabilizing until underlying economic conditions improve.

Fascism promotes anti-socialism the same way the crips promote anti-bloodism. It doesn't mean they're that much different. They're both collectivist ideologies that promote state power for similar purposes.

 

[originalthought]

Fascism promotes anti-socialism the same way the crips promote anti-bloodism. It doesn't mean they're that much different. They're both collectivist ideologies that promote state power for similar purposes.[/QUOTE]

I would agree. They are all the same, in that the state holds the power over the individual. None of them allow the free market to work, and none of them allow for individual freedom and liberty.

 

[Freemason9]

Fascism promotes anti-socialism the same way the crips promote anti-bloodism. It doesn't mean they're that much different. They're both collectivist ideologies that promote state power for similar purposes.

I would agree. They are all the same, in that the state holds the power over the individual. None of them allow the free market to work, and none of them allow for individual freedom and liberty.

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fascism promotes anti-socialism the same way the crips promote anti-bloodism. It doesn't mean they're that much different. They're both collectivist ideologies that promote state power for similar purposes.

I would agree. They are all the same, in that the state holds the power over the individual. None of them allow the free market to work, and none of them allow for individual freedom and liberty.

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

Except that's not what fascism is. Fascism is the state holding absolute power over everyone.

Fascism is for the only liberty which can be a serious thing, the liberty of the state and of the individual in the state. Therefore for the fascist, everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state which is the synthesis and unity of every value, interprets, develops and strengthens the entire life of the people.
—Benito Mussolini, Giovanni Gentile, Doctrine of Fascism (1932)

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Freemason9]

Fascism promotes anti-socialism the same way the crips promote anti-bloodism. It doesn't mean they're that much different. They're both collectivist ideologies that promote state power for similar purposes.

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

Except that's not what fascism is. Fascism is the state holding absolute power over everyone.

Fascism is for the only liberty which can be a serious thing, the liberty of the state and of the individual in the state. Therefore for the fascist, everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state which is the synthesis and unity of every value, interprets, develops and strengthens the entire life of the people.
—Benito Mussolini, Giovanni Gentile, Doctrine of Fascism (1932)

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mussolini also said:


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

and

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

Except that's not what fascism is. Fascism is the state holding absolute power over everyone.

Fascism is for the only liberty which can be a serious thing, the liberty of the state and of the individual in the state. Therefore for the fascist, everything is in the state, and no human or spiritual thing exists, or has any sort of value, outside the state. In this sense fascism is totalitarian, and the fascist state which is the synthesis and unity of every value, interprets, develops and strengthens the entire life of the people.
—Benito Mussolini, Giovanni Gentile, Doctrine of Fascism (1932)

Italian Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mussolini also said:


"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

and

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail."

Fascism is absolutely corporatism, but the word merger is probably misapplied. Look at fascist Italy in practice and ask yourself if Mussolini's government "merged," or shared power, with corporate interests, or simply used its absolute power to favor those businesses that supported them. There's no question that the state was the dominant partner, if you want to call it that, under fascism.

The second quote just goes to make my earlier point. The Crips would say something similar of the Bloods, despite the fact that they're both essentially the same thing: a criminal gang made up of thugs. That they want their gang to have the most power doesn't mean they're inherently different from one another.

 

[originalthought]

Fascism promotes anti-socialism the same way the crips promote anti-bloodism. It doesn't mean they're that much different. They're both collectivist ideologies that promote state power for similar purposes.

I would agree. They are all the same, in that the state holds the power over the individual. None of them allow the free market to work, and none of them allow for individual freedom and liberty.

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

if you are trying to say that this is what I would prefer, please indicate where i said that. If you are trying to say that Wall Street is capitalism, please indicate how.
In a true capitalist society, there would be no such things as corporations, since corporations must be licensed with the STATE, but capitalism seperates the Economy from the State

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would agree. They are all the same, in that the state holds the power over the individual. None of them allow the free market to work, and none of them allow for individual freedom and liberty.

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

if you are trying to say that this is what I would prefer, please indicate where i said that. If you are trying to say that Wall Street is capitalism, please indicate how.
In a true capitalist society, there would be no such things as corporations, since corporations must be licensed with the STATE, but capitalism seperates the Economy from the State

I don't know why a corporation would inherently have to be licensed by a state.

 

[originalthought]

Yes, it is much better to have wealthy capitalists and Wall Street holding power over individuals.

if you are trying to say that this is what I would prefer, please indicate where i said that. If you are trying to say that Wall Street is capitalism, please indicate how.
In a true capitalist society, there would be no such things as corporations, since corporations must be licensed with the STATE, but capitalism seperates the Economy from the State

I don't know why a corporation would inherently have to be licensed by a state.

Corporation -an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law. You can't just one day say, "I am now a corporation." You have to go through the state/government system.

Can you please tell me how wall street is a capitalist function?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

if you are trying to say that this is what I would prefer, please indicate where i said that. If you are trying to say that Wall Street is capitalism, please indicate how.
In a true capitalist society, there would be no such things as corporations, since corporations must be licensed with the STATE, but capitalism seperates the Economy from the State

I don't know why a corporation would inherently have to be licensed by a state.

Corporation -an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law. You can't just one day say, "I am now a corporation." You have to go through the state/government system.

Can you please tell me how wall street is a capitalist function?

Wall Street isn't really capitalist, considering the bailouts and other heavy regulations. It's a corporatist nightmare, like much of the U.S. economy. This, however, sounds like a more applicable definition:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

Corporation | Define Corporation at Dictionary.com

In this sense, there's no reason that, absent the state, a corporation like Apple couldn't exist.

 

[originalthought]

I don't know why a corporation would inherently have to be licensed by a state.

Corporation -an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law. You can't just one day say, "I am now a corporation." You have to go through the state/government system.

Can you please tell me how wall street is a capitalist function?

Wall Street isn't really capitalist, considering the bailouts and other heavy regulations. It's a corporatist nightmare, like much of the U.S. economy. This, however, sounds like a more applicable definition:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

Corporation | Define Corporation at Dictionary.com

In this sense, there's no reason that, absent the state, a corporation like Apple couldn't exist.

Correct, I agree that Wall Street and much of America's economy are not capitalist.

In the absence of the state (pretaining to the economy) there would be some vast differences to companies that are now corporations. Corporations enjoy exemptions that regualr individuals do not have, this could not happen in a capitalist society. You own part of a company, but you cannot be held responsible for a death the company you own causes. Because of this "limited liability" created by the State. This is not capitalism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Corporation -an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law. You can't just one day say, "I am now a corporation." You have to go through the state/government system.

Can you please tell me how wall street is a capitalist function?

Wall Street isn't really capitalist, considering the bailouts and other heavy regulations. It's a corporatist nightmare, like much of the U.S. economy. This, however, sounds like a more applicable definition:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

Corporation | Define Corporation at Dictionary.com

In this sense, there's no reason that, absent the state, a corporation like Apple couldn't exist.

Correct, I agree that Wall Street and much of America's economy are not capitalist.

In the absence of the state (pretaining to the economy) there would be some vast differences to companies that are now corporations. Corporations enjoy exemptions that regualr individuals do not have, this could not happen in a capitalist society. You own part of a company, but you cannot be held responsible for a death the company you own causes. Because of this "limited liability" created by the State. This is not capitalism.

Well there's no question there would be differences, but to say that there would be no corporations at all seems like a stretch.

 

[originalthought]

Wall Street isn't really capitalist, considering the bailouts and other heavy regulations. It's a corporatist nightmare, like much of the U.S. economy. This, however, sounds like a more applicable definition:

"A business organization owned by a group of stockholders, each of whom enjoys limited liability (that is, each can be held responsible for losses only up to the limit of his or her investment). A corporation has the ability to raise capital by selling stock to the public."

Corporation | Define Corporation at Dictionary.com

In this sense, there's no reason that, absent the state, a corporation like Apple couldn't exist.

Correct, I agree that Wall Street and much of America's economy are not capitalist.

In the absence of the state (pretaining to the economy) there would be some vast differences to companies that are now corporations. Corporations enjoy exemptions that regualr individuals do not have, this could not happen in a capitalist society. You own part of a company, but you cannot be held responsible for a death the company you own causes. Because of this "limited liability" created by the State. This is not capitalism.

Well there's no question there would be differences, but to say that there would be no corporations at all seems like a stretch.

I say that because corporation, by definition, is a group of indiviuals protected by the State. In this sense, a cororation would not exist in a capitalist society. And you have to register you corporation with the State, something else that would not happen in a free society.

Either way, i think you and I agree that Wall Street is not capitalism. but people like Freemason9 think it is.

People in this era do not understand what true capitalism is, because collectivist have been telling us for years that we exist in a capitalist society. It's not.