Fascism

[2aguy]

Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.

Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....

Capitalism can exist under fascism -

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

Which doesn't occur in fascism.

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wiki should be considered a starting point, not an end point.

Why start with a bullshit website? If there's a valid link it's elsewhere and you don't need to weed through questionable writings.

 

[westwall]

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

In other words, it doesn't support jack. "Neutral" means it doesn't support. Big business is never able to stifle competition without government help. That's why big business loves government regulation.

Baloney. You are claiming that capitalism supports all business' and now your saying it doesn't.

Big business stifled smaller competitors long before there was much government regulation. Look at our own history.

EXACTLY! Government set the rules that destroyed the competition from the smaller corporations. That is NOT capitalism! At best it can be called crony capitalism, but the one fact that is not arguable is GOVERNMENT controlled who won, and who lost. That is a form of fascism. We have not had a free market economy for decades. When I was a kid we had multiple businesses that catered to the needs of the community. Now we have less than ten. Go to any town and you will see the same stores, walmart, cost plus, Big O tires, etc. etc. etc. The multitude of small mom and pop company's have been wiped out by government regulations so that only the big corps remain.

 

[kaz]

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

 

[Coyote]

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

I agree - the state was the ultimate authority - but that makes it authoritarian, not socialist. I think it's inaccurate to label everything in which the state or a specific leader through the state controls aspects of economy and society as "socialist" because socialism has some very specific defining characteristics.

When you state:

In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.​

I remember reading about that - but it points out two things. One is that the Nazi's were rather unique in ideology. Historians have frequently identified them as neither left nor right, but a bastard born of Hitler's schitzophrenic mind. Nazi ideology was race based, not class based. It's nationalism was race based - centered on the racial superiority of the Germans and "Aryan" racial stock. It was horrible in that women were encouraged and in some cases forced to be breeders for the state. That is not socialism however - the relationship of the people to the state in that fashion is fascism.

Stalin departed somewhat from socialism/communism into a strict authoritarian state and his way of enforcing his authority was to dilute minorities with Russians through forced transfer of people. Entire communities of people for forceably moved to Siberia and entire communities of ethnic Russians were moved to Ukraine, Georgia etc. That's in addition to the mass killings.

Both of those represent authoritarian extremes of different ideologies - fascism and communism.

Not different ideologies. Similar ideologies. So similar that they went to war to choose which one would get to represent that particular ideology. There is much that has been written about hitler that is crap. The first is that he was a huge anti semite. He wasn't. The second is that fascism is racist. It isn't. Racism, anti-semitism (which ALL of Europe still suffers from), and nationalism were merely TOOLS used to generate feelings in the minds of the people.

Hitler was famously presented a list of generals who were Jewish by Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the Sicherheistdienst (the SS secret police) hitler looked it over and tore it up stating " I will tell you who is Jewish and who is not". That lead Heydrich to open files on ALL of the Nazi leadership because unlike them, he WAS a true believer.

Interesting...didn't realize that about Hitler though I did know he harnessed anti-semitism as a means to unite people behind him with a common scapegoat. Most of what I've read has isolated Nazi ideology from both right and left, it has aspects of both and none.

And that is the crux of the argument. The claim that fascism is this or that. It isn't. It is merely a form of socialism who's degree of nastiness is dependent on the leadership....as is true of ALL government types.

I still disagree there - I see a difference in both socialism and fascism on the right/left spectrum - the commonality is when they become authoritarian. I think it's a critical difference between - a classless egalitarian system (which was the theory behind socialism) and a state-oriented, rigidly class defined, traditionally oriented system which is fascism and that is difference between right and left. The overlaps have more to do with authoritarian/totalitarian leaders and the means employed to control the people than it does with the underlying ideologies.

I think you see it more as right is less state left is more - but I don't see it that way.

 

[2aguy]

Crony Socialism is a more accurate term....

 

[Contumacious]

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.

Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....

Capitalism can exist under fascism -

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

Which doesn't occur in fascism.

Sure capitalism can occur in fascism/socialism. However, it's not real capitalism, it's only what government decides to allow. That your mother lets you in the yard doesn't mean you were free to go in the yard at your own discression

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.

Prove it.

How were Russia, North Korea, Cuba or China less nationalistic than Germany. You are just making it up

Overlapping criteria. They all represent authoritarian/totalitarian extremes.

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

 

[Coyote]

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

In other words, it doesn't support jack. "Neutral" means it doesn't support. Big business is never able to stifle competition without government help. That's why big business loves government regulation.

Baloney. You are claiming that capitalism supports all business' and now your saying it doesn't.

Big business stifled smaller competitors long before there was much government regulation. Look at our own history.

EXACTLY! Government set the rules that destroyed the competition from the smaller corporations. That is NOT capitalism! At best it can be called crony capitalism, but the one fact that is not arguable is GOVERNMENT controlled who won, and who lost. That is a form of fascism. We have not had a free market economy for decades. When I was a kid we had multiple businesses that catered to the needs of the community. Now we have less than ten. Go to any town and you will see the same stores, walmart, cost plus, Big O tires, etc. etc. etc. The multitude of small mom and pop company's have been wiped out by government regulations so that only the big corps remain.

Totally agree! But, you also can't ignore what happens with totally unregulated capitalism and the development of monopolies that squeeze out smaller competitors and start ups. Even in the days of the mom and pop stores - there were still regulations in regards to monopolies and anti-trust laws. Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that allows competition to thrive without stifling with regulation or monopolies.

Here's a great USMB example! The old rep system! Think about it

It was very unregulated - pretty minimal rules. The oldest members accumulated vast amounts of rep, and used it to stifle or punish newbies and reward cronies.

 

[Coyote]

Prove it.

How were Russia, North Korea, Cuba or China less nationalistic than Germany. You are just making it up

Overlapping criteria. They all represent authoritarian/totalitarian extremes.

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

Socialism isn't just an economic system. Neither is fascism. And no - democracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive. There are socialist democracies.

 

[Divine Wind]

How is it worse? I saw nobody I respected enough to earn my vote.

Agreed with owebo, better to have voted. Politicians don't give a shit about non-voters. They do pay attention to those who voted against them. Better to have voted, even if it's writing in Jim Webb, than not at all. Besides, there's a lot more items on the ballot than electing POTUS.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

In other words, it doesn't support jack. "Neutral" means it doesn't support. Big business is never able to stifle competition without government help. That's why big business loves government regulation.

Baloney. You are claiming that capitalism supports all business' and now your saying it doesn't.

Big business stifled smaller competitors long before there was much government regulation. Look at our own history.

EXACTLY! Government set the rules that destroyed the competition from the smaller corporations. That is NOT capitalism! At best it can be called crony capitalism, but the one fact that is not arguable is GOVERNMENT controlled who won, and who lost. That is a form of fascism. We have not had a free market economy for decades. When I was a kid we had multiple businesses that catered to the needs of the community. Now we have less than ten. Go to any town and you will see the same stores, walmart, cost plus, Big O tires, etc. etc. etc. The multitude of small mom and pop company's have been wiped out by government regulations so that only the big corps remain.

Totally agree! But, you also can't ignore what happens with totally unregulated capitalism and the development of monopolies that squeeze out smaller competitors and start ups. Even in the days of the mom and pop stores - there were still regulations in regards to monopolies and anti-trust laws. Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that allows competition to thrive without stifling with regulation or monopolies.

Here's a great USMB example! The old rep system! Think about it

It was very unregulated - pretty minimal rules. The oldest members accumulated vast amounts of rep, and used it to stifle or punish newbies and reward cronies.

Again, your understanding of history is a myth. It's leftwing propaganda. Big business was never able to "stifle" competition until big government regulatory agencies made it too expensive for small business to hire all the lawyers required.

 

[westwall]

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

I agree - the state was the ultimate authority - but that makes it authoritarian, not socialist. I think it's inaccurate to label everything in which the state or a specific leader through the state controls aspects of economy and society as "socialist" because socialism has some very specific defining characteristics.

When you state:

In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.​

I remember reading about that - but it points out two things. One is that the Nazi's were rather unique in ideology. Historians have frequently identified them as neither left nor right, but a bastard born of Hitler's schitzophrenic mind. Nazi ideology was race based, not class based. It's nationalism was race based - centered on the racial superiority of the Germans and "Aryan" racial stock. It was horrible in that women were encouraged and in some cases forced to be breeders for the state. That is not socialism however - the relationship of the people to the state in that fashion is fascism.

Stalin departed somewhat from socialism/communism into a strict authoritarian state and his way of enforcing his authority was to dilute minorities with Russians through forced transfer of people. Entire communities of people for forceably moved to Siberia and entire communities of ethnic Russians were moved to Ukraine, Georgia etc. That's in addition to the mass killings.

Both of those represent authoritarian extremes of different ideologies - fascism and communism.

Not different ideologies. Similar ideologies. So similar that they went to war to choose which one would get to represent that particular ideology. There is much that has been written about hitler that is crap. The first is that he was a huge anti semite. He wasn't. The second is that fascism is racist. It isn't. Racism, anti-semitism (which ALL of Europe still suffers from), and nationalism were merely TOOLS used to generate feelings in the minds of the people.

Hitler was famously presented a list of generals who were Jewish by Reinhard Heydrich, the head of the Sicherheistdienst (the SS secret police) hitler looked it over and tore it up stating " I will tell you who is Jewish and who is not". That lead Heydrich to open files on ALL of the Nazi leadership because unlike them, he WAS a true believer.

Interesting...didn't realize that about Hitler though I did know he harnessed anti-semitism as a means to unite people behind him with a common scapegoat. Most of what I've read has isolated Nazi ideology from both right and left, it has aspects of both and none.

And that is the crux of the argument. The claim that fascism is this or that. It isn't. It is merely a form of socialism who's degree of nastiness is dependent on the leadership....as is true of ALL government types.

I still disagree there - I see a difference in both socialism and fascism on the right/left spectrum - the commonality is when they become authoritarian. I think it's a critical difference between - a classless egalitarian system (which was the theory behind socialism) and a state-oriented, rigidly class defined, traditionally oriented system which is fascism and that is difference between right and left. The overlaps have more to do with authoritarian/totalitarian leaders and the means employed to control the people than it does with the underlying ideologies.

I think you see it more as right is less state left is more - but I don't see it that way.

I understand your unwillingness to see that fascism and socialism are the same. You quite literally have been barraged with that propaganda for as long as you've been alive. It takes a long time to break those shackles. Take some time and look at what they DO, not what they say. The socialism link you provided is merely the tip of the iceberg. It is their actions that matter, and in that respect the Soviet Union and Fascist Germany were nearly the same. You existed for the State. And in war you were expected to die for the State.

That, ultimately is how I view a collectivist vs a individualist government. If you are expected to die, you will, if your death is viewed as a sacrifice your leaders will work very hard to try and make sure that you have everything needed to win the war with the minimum of cost. So, lets look at the casualty rates from WWII. The Soviet Union had over 20 million soldiers KILLED. Hell, there was a single machine gun in Stalingrad that killed over 47,000 Russian men and women who were trying to cross the Volga to reinforce the fight. It takes a pretty callous disregard for human life to know that a gun is inflicting those sorts of losses....and not caring enough to try and prevent that loss.

The Germans lost 3 million dead.

The UK lost 400,000, and the USA lost 355,000.

So, who cared for their troops? Who felt that their troops were the most valuable part of their army? Who didn't ORDER their soldiers to fight to the death?

Oh, look at that. Both the Soviet Union and the Germans did those things.

 

[Divine Wind]

Wiki should be considered a starting point, not an end point.

Why start with a bullshit website? If there's a valid link it's elsewhere and you don't need to weed through questionable writings.

Smart people know that's a good place to find valid links. Smart people also know "You can't fix stupid".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

How is it worse? I saw nobody I respected enough to earn my vote.

Agreed with owebo, better to have voted. Politicians don't give a shit about non-voters. They do pay attention to those who voted against them. Better to have voted, even if it's writing in Jim Webb, than not at all. Besides, there's a lot more items on the ballot than electing POTUS.

I certainly voted in state and local issues -- just not for president.

 

[bripat9643]

How were Russia, North Korea, Cuba or China less nationalistic than Germany. You are just making it up

Overlapping criteria. They all represent authoritarian/totalitarian extremes.

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

Socialism isn't just an economic system. Neither is fascism. And no - democracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive. There are socialist democracies.

If you're talking about the left/right paradigm, the economic aspects are the only thing relevant. That's what it measures, the degree of government control you endorse. The rest is political propaganda that proves nothing and never can prove anything.

And, yes, government control of the economy and democratic government are mutually exclusive. It can't work and always devolves to totalitarian dictatorship whenever it's tried.

 

[westwall]

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

In other words, it doesn't support jack. "Neutral" means it doesn't support. Big business is never able to stifle competition without government help. That's why big business loves government regulation.

Baloney. You are claiming that capitalism supports all business' and now your saying it doesn't.

Big business stifled smaller competitors long before there was much government regulation. Look at our own history.

EXACTLY! Government set the rules that destroyed the competition from the smaller corporations. That is NOT capitalism! At best it can be called crony capitalism, but the one fact that is not arguable is GOVERNMENT controlled who won, and who lost. That is a form of fascism. We have not had a free market economy for decades. When I was a kid we had multiple businesses that catered to the needs of the community. Now we have less than ten. Go to any town and you will see the same stores, walmart, cost plus, Big O tires, etc. etc. etc. The multitude of small mom and pop company's have been wiped out by government regulations so that only the big corps remain.

Totally agree! But, you also can't ignore what happens with totally unregulated capitalism and the development of monopolies that squeeze out smaller competitors and start ups. Even in the days of the mom and pop stores - there were still regulations in regards to monopolies and anti-trust laws. Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that allows competition to thrive without stifling with regulation or monopolies.

Here's a great USMB example! The old rep system! Think about it

It was very unregulated - pretty minimal rules. The oldest members accumulated vast amounts of rep, and used it to stifle or punish newbies and reward cronies.

Absolutely not. My belief has always been that you need a healthy mix of capitalist (true capitalist, not what we have now) and socialist policies. When either system takes control is when problems happen. And yes, the old rep system is a perfect example.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wiki should be considered a starting point, not an end point.

Why start with a bullshit website? If there's a valid link it's elsewhere and you don't need to weed through questionable writings.

Smart people know that's a good place to find valid links. Smart people also know "You can't fix stupid".

I've seen you post wiki links so you're full of shit trying to save face, as usual.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

In other words, it doesn't support jack. "Neutral" means it doesn't support. Big business is never able to stifle competition without government help. That's why big business loves government regulation.

Baloney. You are claiming that capitalism supports all business' and now your saying it doesn't.

Big business stifled smaller competitors long before there was much government regulation. Look at our own history.

EXACTLY! Government set the rules that destroyed the competition from the smaller corporations. That is NOT capitalism! At best it can be called crony capitalism, but the one fact that is not arguable is GOVERNMENT controlled who won, and who lost. That is a form of fascism. We have not had a free market economy for decades. When I was a kid we had multiple businesses that catered to the needs of the community. Now we have less than ten. Go to any town and you will see the same stores, walmart, cost plus, Big O tires, etc. etc. etc. The multitude of small mom and pop company's have been wiped out by government regulations so that only the big corps remain.

Totally agree! But, you also can't ignore what happens with totally unregulated capitalism and the development of monopolies that squeeze out smaller competitors and start ups. Even in the days of the mom and pop stores - there were still regulations in regards to monopolies and anti-trust laws. Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot that allows competition to thrive without stifling with regulation or monopolies.

Here's a great USMB example! The old rep system! Think about it

It was very unregulated - pretty minimal rules. The oldest members accumulated vast amounts of rep, and used it to stifle or punish newbies and reward cronies.

Again, you're spouting leftwing myths, not history. There were no federal regulators before the Sherman anti-trust act, and there were still very few regulations until FDR ascended to the throne. Our economy grew by leaps and bounds, and monopolies did not take over the country.

 

[westwall]

How were Russia, North Korea, Cuba or China less nationalistic than Germany. You are just making it up

Overlapping criteria. They all represent authoritarian/totalitarian extremes.

They are all socialist regimes. If you disagree, then the term "socialism" is absolutely meaningless. It's a unicorn that exists only in your fantasies.

You can't even define socialism correctly

Your claims essentially amount to - "because I say so" and then, when that fails, you have to resort to personal attacks.

Here's what the socialists say about their ideology:

What is Socialism? | World Socialist Movement

Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.


But does it really make sense for everybody to own everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon common ownership.


In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.


Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Etc.​

Of course while it sounds fine in principle, it doesn't work well in reality but that is essentially what socialism is. End of class structure, common ownership of private property and means of production.

It doesn't matter what the socialist say. I'm talking about economics. When you boil down all the socialists schemes they resolve to one thing: government control of the economy. All your blather about democracy and other socialist lies are political propaganda. What matters in economics is whether private individuals make their own decisions about what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, or whether government makes that decision.

If anything, democracy makes socialism even more impractical. They are in practice mutually exclusive. The more government controls the economy, the lesser role voters have in the process. It's virtually impossible to make decisions about how to run a factory or a productive enterprise with a majority vote. Every time it has been tried the result is absolute collapse. There's a reason all attempts at socialism have devolved into totalitarian dictatorships. That's because state control of productive enterprises requires it.

Socialism isn't just an economic system. Neither is fascism. And no - democracy and socialism is not mutually exclusive. There are socialist democracies.

Correct! They are socio-economic systems. European socialism is what you are talking about and while their politicians are "democratically" elected, the bureaucracy's are entrenched, and it is they who actually run the countries involved.