Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep, ask Henry Kissinger who was Secretary of State. He's the only one left alive that engineered the coup which got rid of Allende to allow Pinochet to take over. Pinochet lived his life as a war criminal.Are they really allies if one side of that equation has no choice in the matter?
Can you give us a definition differentiating between socialism and fascism?
I did. See the link on Chile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)
"Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens (Spanish: [salβaˈðoɾ aˈʝende ˈɣosens]; 26 June 1908 11 September 1973) was a Chilean physician and politician, known as the first Marxist to become president of a Latin American country through open elections.[1]"
Salvador Allende - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The military dictatorship of Chile (Spanish: dictadura militar de Chile) was an authoritarian military government that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990. The dictatorship was established after the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973. The dictatorship was headed by a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet. The perceived breakdown of democracy and the economic crisis that took place during Allende's presidency were justifications used by the military to seize power. The dictatorship presented its mission as a "national reconstruction".
"The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of members of Allende's government and civilians including teachers, doctors, academics, trade unionists, musicians and poets to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of Chile. Over-all, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing[1] and forced 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2] The dictatorship shaped much of modern Chile's political, educational and economic life. In 1980, it replaced the Constitution of 1925 with a a new one crafted by regime collaborators. The constitution was approved in a highly controversial referendum in 1980, but Pinochet's plans to remain in power were thwarted in 1988 when the regime admitted defeat in a referendum that opened the way for democracy to be reestablished in 1990. Before the regime relinquished power, an amnesty law was passed, preventing most members of the military from being prosecuted by the subsequent government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)
Military dictatorship of Chile (1973?90) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973 Chilean coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"He[Pinochet] shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,200 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) ... Pinochet’s name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex." ”Yep, ask Henry Kissinger who was Secretary of State. He's the only one left alive that engineered the coup which got rid of Allende to allow Pinochet to take over. Pinochet lived his life as a war criminal.I did. See the link on Chile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)
"Salvador Guillermo Allende Gossens (Spanish: [salβaˈðoɾ aˈʝende ˈɣosens]; 26 June 1908 – 11 September 1973) was a Chilean physician and politician, known as the first Marxist to become president of a Latin American country through open elections.[1]"
Salvador Allende - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The military dictatorship of Chile (Spanish: dictadura militar de Chile) was an authoritarian military government that ruled Chile between 1973 and 1990. The dictatorship was established after the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973. The dictatorship was headed by a military junta presided by General Augusto Pinochet. The perceived breakdown of democracy and the economic crisis that took place during Allende's presidency were justifications used by the military to seize power. The dictatorship presented its mission as a "national reconstruction".
"The regime was characterized by the systematic suppression of political parties and the persecution of members of Allende's government and civilians including teachers, doctors, academics, trade unionists, musicians and poets to an extent that was unprecedented in the history of Chile. Over-all, the regime left over 3,000 dead or missing[1] and forced 200,000 Chileans into exile.[2] The dictatorship shaped much of modern Chile's political, educational and economic life. In 1980, it replaced the Constitution of 1925 with a a new one crafted by regime collaborators. The constitution was approved in a highly controversial referendum in 1980, but Pinochet's plans to remain in power were thwarted in 1988 when the regime admitted defeat in a referendum that opened the way for democracy to be reestablished in 1990. Before the regime relinquished power, an amnesty law was passed, preventing most members of the military from being prosecuted by the subsequent government."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship_of_Chile_(1973–90)
Military dictatorship of Chile (1973?90) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973 Chilean coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. government had nothing to do with coup, so your post is just so much commie horseshit. Pinochet was a hero to his people who fought an attempt by Cuban agents and Chilean traitors to convert Chile to a Soviet client state.
Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile. That's why commies like you hate him so much.
That's merely a history lesson of what happened in Chile. What is the definitional difference between socialism and fascism? How are they different economically?
The point is Kevin, fascism isn't a cookie cutter ism. Pinochet was a fascist who replaced Allende who was a Marxist.
You say they're not related to one another at all, and yet you seem unwilling to explain what the difference between the two is.
"Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile." bripat throws away the guise of anarchist forever: he is a fascist. He admires the fascism of the right and the left. Remember when he was quoting directly from communist literature. bripat is what he is: someone who hates American democracy.Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile.
"He[Pinochet] shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,200 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them) ... Pinochets name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex." Yep, ask Henry Kissinger who was Secretary of State. He's the only one left alive that engineered the coup which got rid of Allende to allow Pinochet to take over. Pinochet lived his life as a war criminal.
Military dictatorship of Chile (1973?90) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973 Chilean coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. government had nothing to do with coup, so your post is just so much commie horseshit. Pinochet was a hero to his people who fought an attempt by Cuban agents and Chilean traitors to convert Chile to a Soviet client state.
Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile. That's why commies like you hate him so much.
. Thor Halvorssen, president of the Human Rights Foundation, National Review [14
<
The above is from the link that I provided. I guess you didn't read it.
Military dictatorship of Chile (1973?90) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile." bripat throws away the guise of anarchist forever: he is a fascist. He admires the fascism of the right and the left. Remember when he was quoting directly from communist literature. bripat is what he is: someone who hates American democracy.Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile.
The point is Kevin, fascism isn't a cookie cutter ism. Pinochet was a fascist who replaced Allende who was a Marxist.
You say they're not related to one another at all, and yet you seem unwilling to explain what the difference between the two is.
Of course they're related, but you and others want to entangle Socialism as a necessary component of fascism which is not the case.
"Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are levels of power that the government wields over the private lives of individual citizens. An Authoritarian regime will exercise some power over people's private lives, but they do not control everything. Tito's Yugoslavia and Fascist Italy are good examples Authoritarian regimes.
"Totalitarianism is when the government seizes total, or near total control over every living being and knows everything about their private lives. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are good examples of Totalitarian regimes.
"Fascism is a counter to Socialism and Communism, but is based off of no singular philosophy. In general, Fascist movements in general preach in favor of militarism, extreme nationalism, anti-communism, and anti-social change. Some, like the Nazis, also added racial purity as another major cause for Fascism to support, which many times has earned the term "Nazism" to differentiate itself from Mussolini's Italy. Fascism is on the far fringes of the political Right. Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy are the best examples of Fascist governments."
Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506000941AAtdJT9
Thus I posted the thread which IMO aptly describes many of the far right kooks who post on this forum as Neo Fascists. They sure as hell aren't patriots, democrats (small 'd', someone explain why to the ignorant) or supporters of the founding documents (DoI and COTUS) of our nation.
The truth about fascism is that it's essentially directly related to socialism.
There is no direct nexus between fascism and socialism
"Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile." bripat throws away the guise of anarchist forever: he is a fascist. He admires the fascism of the right and the left. Remember when he was quoting directly from communist literature. bripat is what he is: someone who hates American democracy.Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile.
Equating fascism with both the left and the right suggests to me that those terms (left and right) are obsolete. The Soviet Union, and N. Korea are examples of totalitarianism and authoritarianism, as was Nazi German, and in recent decades Chile and Argentina.
I'm not sure what political ideology bripat holds dear, I do wonder if he is sane.
You say they're not related to one another at all, and yet you seem unwilling to explain what the difference between the two is.
Of course they're related, but you and others want to entangle Socialism as a necessary component of fascism which is not the case.
"Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are levels of power that the government wields over the private lives of individual citizens. An Authoritarian regime will exercise some power over people's private lives, but they do not control everything. Tito's Yugoslavia and Fascist Italy are good examples Authoritarian regimes.
"Totalitarianism is when the government seizes total, or near total control over every living being and knows everything about their private lives. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are good examples of Totalitarian regimes.
"Fascism is a counter to Socialism and Communism, but is based off of no singular philosophy. In general, Fascist movements in general preach in favor of militarism, extreme nationalism, anti-communism, and anti-social change. Some, like the Nazis, also added racial purity as another major cause for Fascism to support, which many times has earned the term "Nazism" to differentiate itself from Mussolini's Italy. Fascism is on the far fringes of the political Right. Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy are the best examples of Fascist governments."
Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506000941AAtdJT9
Thus I posted the thread which IMO aptly describes many of the far right kooks who post on this forum as Neo Fascists. They sure as hell aren't patriots, democrats (small 'd', someone explain why to the ignorant) or supporters of the founding documents (DoI and COTUS) of our nation.
The bold portion is incorrect. I only ever claimed that they're related.
The truth about fascism is that it's essentially directly related to socialism.
You then denied it.
There is no direct nexus between fascism and socialism
I then asked you to define for us the differences, and now we've come to you essentially agreeing with my original statement. Fascism can be defined, as I said earlier, as state management of the economy, whereas we might define socialism as the state simply attempting to provide all goods and services within an economy itself. This is a difference, but it's not that big of one.
As for calling conservatives "neo-fascists," I would say it's clear that the people running the Republican Party at the top certainly support and promote fascist policies. It's also clear, however, that the people who run the Democratic Party at the top do as well. Any Democrat supporting ObamaCare, which is a perfect example of the government managing the health insurance market, is supporting a blatantly fascist policy.
Contrast fascism, state management of the economy, with free market capitalism, which is in its simplest terms the market being regulated by the wants and needs of every person participating in the economy with no state interference.
Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll simply ask: Are you saying that anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist?
Of course they're related, but you and others want to entangle Socialism as a necessary component of fascism which is not the case.
"Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism are levels of power that the government wields over the private lives of individual citizens. An Authoritarian regime will exercise some power over people's private lives, but they do not control everything. Tito's Yugoslavia and Fascist Italy are good examples Authoritarian regimes.
"Totalitarianism is when the government seizes total, or near total control over every living being and knows everything about their private lives. Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are good examples of Totalitarian regimes.
"Fascism is a counter to Socialism and Communism, but is based off of no singular philosophy. In general, Fascist movements in general preach in favor of militarism, extreme nationalism, anti-communism, and anti-social change. Some, like the Nazis, also added racial purity as another major cause for Fascism to support, which many times has earned the term "Nazism" to differentiate itself from Mussolini's Italy. Fascism is on the far fringes of the political Right. Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, and Mussolini's Italy are the best examples of Fascist governments."
Link: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090506000941AAtdJT9
Thus I posted the thread which IMO aptly describes many of the far right kooks who post on this forum as Neo Fascists. They sure as hell aren't patriots, democrats (small 'd', someone explain why to the ignorant) or supporters of the founding documents (DoI and COTUS) of our nation.
The bold portion is incorrect. I only ever claimed that they're related.
You then denied it.
There is no direct nexus between fascism and socialism
I then asked you to define for us the differences, and now we've come to you essentially agreeing with my original statement. Fascism can be defined, as I said earlier, as state management of the economy, whereas we might define socialism as the state simply attempting to provide all goods and services within an economy itself. This is a difference, but it's not that big of one.
As for calling conservatives "neo-fascists," I would say it's clear that the people running the Republican Party at the top certainly support and promote fascist policies. It's also clear, however, that the people who run the Democratic Party at the top do as well. Any Democrat supporting ObamaCare, which is a perfect example of the government managing the health insurance market, is supporting a blatantly fascist policy.
Contrast fascism, state management of the economy, with free market capitalism, which is in its simplest terms the market being regulated by the wants and needs of every person participating in the economy with no state interference.
Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll simply ask: Are you saying that anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist?
I do not believe, "anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist". I also don't believe a "completely free market" will ever exist and if it did it would result in massive exploitation. The greatest threat to capitalism are capitalists. The PPACA is an example of regulatory capitalism, not Socialism.
Did you ever see the movie John Q.?
Is this fiction?
John Q - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or is it prescient if the Republicans get their way?
The bold portion is incorrect. I only ever claimed that they're related.
You then denied it.
I then asked you to define for us the differences, and now we've come to you essentially agreeing with my original statement. Fascism can be defined, as I said earlier, as state management of the economy, whereas we might define socialism as the state simply attempting to provide all goods and services within an economy itself. This is a difference, but it's not that big of one.
As for calling conservatives "neo-fascists," I would say it's clear that the people running the Republican Party at the top certainly support and promote fascist policies. It's also clear, however, that the people who run the Democratic Party at the top do as well. Any Democrat supporting ObamaCare, which is a perfect example of the government managing the health insurance market, is supporting a blatantly fascist policy.
I DIDN'T CALL ALL CONSERVATIVES NEO FASCISTS
Contrast fascism, state management of the economy, with free market capitalism, which is in its simplest terms the market being regulated by the wants and needs of every person participating in the economy with no state interference.
Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I'll simply ask: Are you saying that anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist?
I do not believe, "anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist". I also don't believe a "completely free market" will ever exist and if it did it would result in massive exploitation. The greatest threat to capitalism are capitalists. The PPACA is an example of regulatory capitalism, not Socialism.
Did you ever see the movie John Q.?
Is this fiction?
John Q - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or is it prescient if the Republicans get their way?
I didn't say it was an example of socialism, I said it was an example of fascism. "Regulatory capitalism" is just a nice word for fascism. That would be the government working with the health insurance providers to right up "regulations" to manage health insurance providers in general. That's a perfect example of corporatism, aka fascism.
Republicans and Democrats have had their way for well over a century, and yes, that's exactly the type of thing that happens because of it. If there were a free market in health insurance, health care, and organ transplants then we would see the price for all three consistently go down as innovation and competition forced them to lower their prices.
I do not believe, "anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist". I also don't believe a "completely free market" will ever exist and if it did it would result in massive exploitation. The greatest threat to capitalism are capitalists. The PPACA is an example of regulatory capitalism, not Socialism.
Did you ever see the movie John Q.?
Is this fiction?
John Q - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or is it prescient if the Republicans get their way?
I didn't say it was an example of socialism, I said it was an example of fascism. "Regulatory capitalism" is just a nice word for fascism. That would be the government working with the health insurance providers to right up "regulations" to manage health insurance providers in general. That's a perfect example of corporatism, aka fascism.
Republicans and Democrats have had their way for well over a century, and yes, that's exactly the type of thing that happens because of it. If there were a free market in health insurance, health care, and organ transplants then we would see the price for all three consistently go down as innovation and competition forced them to lower their prices.
Kevin, we'll never agree. Regulatory Capitalism is not fascism, saying it is, is ridiculous. Look at the definition of Neo fascism in my signature.
Does anyone believe it is wise to allow a contractor to build a structure based on the free market system? Sure, when the stricture falls and people die, the company will no longer be hired for other projects. If no licensing agency exists and no standards are required, a free market system will create chaos, for structures will fail and no civil or criminal penalties will protect the consumer sanction the contractor.
Now, do I believe regulations and fees can and have gone way to far? Yes, I do. That said, one reason for such a circumstance is the private sector does not and cannot police itself.
I didn't say it was an example of socialism, I said it was an example of fascism. "Regulatory capitalism" is just a nice word for fascism. That would be the government working with the health insurance providers to right up "regulations" to manage health insurance providers in general. That's a perfect example of corporatism, aka fascism.
Republicans and Democrats have had their way for well over a century, and yes, that's exactly the type of thing that happens because of it. If there were a free market in health insurance, health care, and organ transplants then we would see the price for all three consistently go down as innovation and competition forced them to lower their prices.
Kevin, we'll never agree. Regulatory Capitalism is not fascism, saying it is, is ridiculous. Look at the definition of Neo fascism in my signature.
Does anyone believe it is wise to allow a contractor to build a structure based on the free market system? Sure, when the stricture falls and people die, the company will no longer be hired for other projects. If no licensing agency exists and no standards are required, a free market system will create chaos, for structures will fail and no civil or criminal penalties will protect the consumer sanction the contractor.
Now, do I believe regulations and fees can and have gone way to far? Yes, I do. That said, one reason for such a circumstance is the private sector does not and cannot police itself.
The definition in your signature is irrelevant, as it leaves out the fact that fascism is first and foremost an economic system. As such, the government managing health insurers under ObamaCare easily fits the definition of fascism. If you don't believe so, then I would ask that you give us contrasting definitions of "regulatory capitalism" and fascism. I've given my definition of fascism several times, so I think my position is clear.
Kevin, we'll never agree. Regulatory Capitalism is not fascism, saying it is, is ridiculous. Look at the definition of Neo fascism in my signature.
Does anyone believe it is wise to allow a contractor to build a structure based on the free market system? Sure, when the stricture falls and people die, the company will no longer be hired for other projects. If no licensing agency exists and no standards are required, a free market system will create chaos, for structures will fail and no civil or criminal penalties will protect the consumer sanction the contractor.
Now, do I believe regulations and fees can and have gone way to far? Yes, I do. That said, one reason for such a circumstance is the private sector does not and cannot police itself.
The definition in your signature is irrelevant, as it leaves out the fact that fascism is first and foremost an economic system. As such, the government managing health insurers under ObamaCare easily fits the definition of fascism. If you don't believe so, then I would ask that you give us contrasting definitions of "regulatory capitalism" and fascism. I've given my definition of fascism several times, so I think my position is clear.
The point of this thread is neo fascism and how the far right hold opinions consistent with the definition, not mine, of one taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Why not prove to me and others that, " fascism is first and foremost an economic system". You keep saying it is so, but offer no evidence, only your opinion - which, BTW, diverts from the premise of the OP..
[Of course I too am offering an opinion, one which has yet to be controverted by you or anyone else. I've been reading posts by self defined conservatives for years now and to deny they do not promote in their posts Neo Fascist opinions, as defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica, is patently absurd. You may disagree with the definition, but to even suggest such rhetoric is not a regular part of the messages posted on this message board by the RW echo chamber is not credible.
I do not believe, "anybody who supports completely free markets, capitalism, in other words, is a neo-fascist". I also don't believe a "completely free market" will ever exist and if it did it would result in massive exploitation. The greatest threat to capitalism are capitalists. The PPACA is an example of regulatory capitalism, not Socialism.
Did you ever see the movie John Q.?
Is this fiction?
John Q - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or is it prescient if the Republicans get their way?
I didn't say it was an example of socialism, I said it was an example of fascism. "Regulatory capitalism" is just a nice word for fascism. That would be the government working with the health insurance providers to right up "regulations" to manage health insurance providers in general. That's a perfect example of corporatism, aka fascism.
Republicans and Democrats have had their way for well over a century, and yes, that's exactly the type of thing that happens because of it. If there were a free market in health insurance, health care, and organ transplants then we would see the price for all three consistently go down as innovation and competition forced them to lower their prices.
Kevin, we'll never agree. Regulatory Capitalism is not fascism, saying it is, is ridiculous. Look at the definition of Neo fascism in my signature.
Does anyone believe it is wise to allow a contractor to build a structure based on the free market system?
Sure, when the stricture falls and people die, the company will no longer be hired for other projects. If no licensing agency exists and no standards are required, a free market system will create chaos, for structures will fail and no civil or criminal penalties will protect the consumer sanction the contractor.
Now, do I believe regulations and fees can and have gone way to far? Yes, I do. That said, one reason for such a circumstance is the private sector does not and cannot police itself.
"Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile." bripat throws away the guise of anarchist forever: he is a fascist. He admires the fascism of the right and the left. Remember when he was quoting directly from communist literature. bripat is what he is: someone who hates American democracy.Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile.
"Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile." bripat throws away the guise of anarchist forever: he is a fascist. He admires the fascism of the right and the left. Remember when he was quoting directly from communist literature. bripat is what he is: someone who hates American democracy.Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile.
Hates American Democracy? Not only did Pinochet receive support from the US, he restored democracy after he retired from power was the communist party(which received support from Cuba and the USSR, I suppose those are bastions of democracy in your pozzed mind). So how anyone could construe supporting pinochet as anti-american or anti-democratic is laughable. Honestly piss off you leftist queer.
"Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile." bripat throws away the guise of anarchist forever: he is a fascist. He admires the fascism of the right and the left. Remember when he was quoting directly from communist literature. bripat is what he is: someone who hates American democracy.Pinochet was the best thing that ever happened to Chile.
Hates American Democracy? Not only did Pinochet receive support from the US, he restored democracy after he retired from power was the communist party(which received support from Cuba and the USSR, I suppose those are bastions of democracy in your pozzed mind). So how anyone could construe supporting pinochet as anti-american or anti-democratic is laughable. Honestly piss off you leftist queer.
You are a fascist also. OK.
You know Pinochet was bisexual, don't you?
