Neofascism

[Steinlight]

Plenty of dictators supported the USA.

Killing the opposition is not restoring democracy.

Making thousands disappear is not restoring democracy.

Torturing thousands of more is not democracy.

No, Pinochet certainly did not value democracy and the rule of law.

And your latent homo is peeking out, steinie.

You still didn't explain how supporting pinochet is anti-american when he supported America. Want to hear about that, lol.

Installing elections is democracy, even the US, a democratic country, allows for martial law under civil unreast, doesn't make it less of a democracy. Chile was under threat from a communist takeover. Once that threat was eliminated, elections were installed.
Chilean transition to democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your projection, self hatred, self absorption and insecurity with your homosexual identity is hilarious, "you better embrace my homosexuality, faggot, by the way pinochet is gay". Stop bringing it into every conversation.

 

[bripat9643]

"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?

That sounds like a commie lie.

 

[bripat9643]

Plenty of dictators supported the USA.

Killing the opposition is not restoring democracy.

Making thousands disappear is not restoring democracy.

Torturing thousands of more is not democracy.

No, Pinochet certainly did not value democracy and the rule of law.

And your latent homo is peeking out, steinie.

If that's the case, then Lincoln did not value democracy or the rule of law either.

Right Fakey?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Those on the far right who claim to be conservatives and call all of us who question their ideology "commies", "Marxists", "Socialists" and "Leftists" (among other pejoratives) need to be called exactly what they are: Neo fascists.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Neo fascism is a political philosophy and movement that arose in Europe in the decades following World War II. Like earlier fascist movements, neo fascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed liberal individualism, attacked Marxist and other left-wing ideologies, indulged in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, and promoted populist right-wing economic programs. Unlike the fascists, however, neo fascist's placed more blame for their countries’ problems on non-European immigrants than on leftists and Jews"

Why do they hide behind a misnomer label, they're in no way or manner real conservatives? Neo fascists support economic policies which benefit the Corporate America and the power elite. As corporatist's many who support such policies are not in the same class as the rich and powerful; why they do is an interesting question best left to the psychologists.

fascism is socialism....there is no difference.....two sides of the same coin.

racism... well since you support state sponsored racism via affirmative action...it's kinda on you

xenophobia......I don't know of many RWs that hate Mexican (which is what your implying), we just hate that people don't come here legally, it just happens that Mexicans are by far the largest group and some don't learn English.......

 

[bedowin62]

a lifelong SOCIALIST, UNION MEMBER, and member of the Italian COMMUNIST PARTY is credited with inventing modern fascism


libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like the rational conservatives have simply avoided this thread, likely to pause and think about the radical RINO element and the idiot fringe that has taken the conservative movement over the edge.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

You are patently absurd. You fool no one. Conservatives favor the description below, not what your polemic intolerant mind conjures up.


Free Market: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
Free Market
by Murray N. Rothbard
About the Author
Search CEE


“ Free market” is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a newsdealer for fifty cents, the newsdealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the newsdealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

Both parties undertake the exchange because each expects to gain from it. Also, each will repeat the exchange next time (or refuse to) because his expectation has proved correct (or incorrect) in the recent past. Trade, or exchange, is engaged in precisely because both parties benefit; if they did not expect to gain, they would not agree to the exchange.

This simple reasoning refutes the argument against free trade typical of the “mercantilist” period of sixteenth- to eighteenth-century Europe and classically expounded by the famed sixteenth-century French essayist Montaigne. The mercantilists argued that in any trade, one party can benefit only at the expense of the other—that in every transaction there is a winner and a loser, an “exploiter” and an “exploited.” We can immediately see the fallacy in this still-popular viewpoint: the willingness and even eagerness to trade means that both parties benefit. In modern game-theory jargon, trade is a win-win situation, a “positive-sum” rather than a “zero-sum” or “negative-sum” game.

How can both parties benefit from an exchange? Each one values the two goods or services differently, and these differences set the scene for an exchange. I, for example, am walking along with money in my pocket but no newspaper; the newsdealer, on the other hand, has plenty of newspapers but is anxious to acquire money. And so, finding each other, we strike a deal.

Two factors determine the terms of any agreement: how much each participant values each good in question, and each participant’s bargaining skills. How many cents will exchange for one newspaper, or how many Mickey Mantle baseball cards will swap for a Babe Ruth, depends on all the participants in the newspaper market or the baseball card market—on how much each one values the cards as compared with the other goods he could buy. These terms of exchange, called “prices” (of newspapers in terms of money, or of Babe Ruth cards in terms of Mickey Mantles), are ultimately determined by how many newspapers, or baseball cards, are available on the market in relation to how favorably buyers evaluate these goods—in shorthand, by the interaction of their supply with the demand for them.

Given the supply of a good, an increase in its value in the minds of the buyers will raise the demand for the good, more money will be bid for it, and its price will rise. The reverse occurs if the value, and therefore the demand, for the good falls. On the other hand, given the buyers’ evaluation, or demand, for a good, if the supply increases, each unit of supply—each baseball card or loaf of bread—will fall in value, and therefore the price of the good will fall. The reverse occurs if the supply of the good decreases.

The market, then, is not simply an array; it is a highly complex, interacting latticework of exchanges. In primitive societies, exchanges are all barter or direct exchange. Two people trade two directly useful goods, such as horses for cows or Mickey Mantles for Babe Ruths. But as a society develops, a step-by-step process of mutual benefit creates a situation in which one or two broadly useful and valuable commodities are chosen on the market as a medium of indirect exchange. This money-commodity, generally but not always gold or silver, is then demanded not only for its own sake, but even more to facilitate a reexchange for another desired commodity. It is much easier to pay steelworkers not in steel bars but in money, with which the workers can then buy whatever they desire. They are willing to accept money because they know from experience and insight that everyone else in the society will also accept that money in payment.

The modern, almost infinite latticework of exchanges, the market, is made possible by the use of money. Each person engages in specialization, or a division of labor, producing what he or she is best at. Production begins with natural resources, and then various forms of machines and capital goods, until finally, goods are sold to the consumer. At each stage of production from natural resource to consumer good, money is voluntarily exchanged for capital goods, labor services, and land resources. At each step of the way, terms of exchanges, or prices, are determined by the voluntary interactions of suppliers and demanders. This market is “free” because choices, at each step, are made freely and voluntarily.

The free market and the free price system make goods from around the world available to consumers. The free market also gives the largest possible scope to entrepreneurs, who risk capital to allocate resources so as to satisfy the future desires of the mass of consumers as efficiently as possible. Saving and investment can then develop capital goods and increase the productivity and wages of workers, thereby increasing their standard of living. The free competitive market also rewards and stimulates technological innovation that allows the innovator to get a head start in satisfying consumer wants in new and creative ways.

Not only is investment encouraged, but perhaps more important, the price system, and the profit-and-loss incentives of the market, guide capital investment and production into the proper paths. The intricate latticework can mesh and “clear” all markets so that there are no sudden, unforeseen, and inexplicable shortages and surpluses anywhere in the production system.

But exchanges are not necessarily free. Many are coerced. If a robber threatens you with, “Your money or your life,” your payment to him is coerced and not voluntary, and he benefits at your expense. It is robbery, not free markets, that actually follows the mercantilist model: the robber benefits at the expense of the coerced. Exploitation occurs not in the free market, but where the coercer exploits his victim. In the long run, coercion is a negative-sum game that leads to reduced production, saving, and investment; a depleted stock of capital; and reduced productivity and living standards for all, perhaps even for the coercers themselves.

Government, in every society, is the only lawful system of coercion. Taxation is a coerced exchange, and the heavier the burden of taxation on production, the more likely it is that economic growth will falter and decline. Other forms of government coercion (e.g., price controls or restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market) hamper and cripple market exchanges, while others (prohibitions on deceptive practices, enforcement of contracts) can facilitate voluntary exchanges.

The ultimate in government coercion is socialism. Under socialist central planning the socialist planning board lacks a price system for land or capital goods. As even socialists like Robert Heilbroner now admit (see socialism), the socialist planning board therefore has no way to calculate prices or costs or to invest capital so that the latticework of production meshes and clears. The experience of the former Soviet Union, where a bumper wheat harvest somehow could not find its way to retail stores, is an instructive example of the impossibility of operating a complex, modern economy in the absence of a free market. There was neither incentive nor means of calculating prices and costs for hopper cars to get to the wheat, for the flour mills to receive and process it, and so on down through the large number of stages needed to reach the ultimate consumer in Moscow or Sverdlovsk. The investment in wheat was almost totally wasted.

Market socialism is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. The fashionable discussion of market socialism often overlooks one crucial aspect of the market: When two goods are exchanged, what is really exchanged is the property titles in those goods. When I buy a newspaper for fifty cents, the seller and I are exchanging property titles: I yield the ownership of the fifty cents and grant it to the newsdealer, and he yields the ownership of the newspaper to me. The exact same process occurs as in buying a house, except that in the case of the newspaper, matters are much more informal and we can avoid the intricate process of deeds, notarized contracts, agents, attorneys, mortgage brokers, and so on. But the economic nature of the two transactions remains the same.

This means that the key to the existence and flourishing of the free market is a society in which the rights and titles of private property are respected, defended, and kept secure. The key to socialism, on the other hand, is government ownership of the means of production, land, and capital goods. Under socialism, therefore, there can be no market in land or capital goods worthy of the name.

Some critics of the free market argue that property rights are in conflict with “human” rights. But the critics fail to realize that in a free-market system, every person has a property right over his own person and his own labor and can make free contracts for those services. Slavery violates the basic property right of the slave over his own body and person, a right that is the groundwork for any person’s property rights over nonhuman material objects. What is more, all rights are human rights, whether it is everyone’s right to free speech or one individual’s property rights in his own home.

A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes “the law of the jungle,” of “dog eat dog,” that it spurns human cooperation for competition and exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits and where everyone’s living standard flourishes (compared with what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared with other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity—the notable examples in the last half of the twentieth century were the communist countries—where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially but also deadens their spirit.

 

[Iceweasel]

Looks like the rational conservatives have simply avoided this thread, likely to pause and think about the radical RINO element and the idiot fringe that has taken the conservative movement over the edge.

Maybe when you have something rational to say you'll get more conversation.

 

[srlip]

Libertarians favor such a thing. Most repubs favor repubs,and that's all.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Ok, wry,I agree with this part to and exent. The problem is we have too many laws. Yes we want clean water, ect. Hell I'll even try and save a dolphin. But the problem is people want to save the spot bellied cockroach. I hate roaches and let them die off.

Also the govt shouldn't be using tax code to change the behavior of it's citizens.....and also businesses. When you make a law, no more exemptions....apply it to everyone in that business.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Ok, wry,I agree with this part to and exent. The problem is we have too many laws. Yes we want clean water, ect. Hell I'll even try and save a dolphin. But the problem is people want to save the spot bellied cockroach. I hate roaches and let them die off.

Also the govt shouldn't be using tax code to change the behavior of it's citizens.....and also businesses. When you make a law, no more exemptions....apply it to everyone in that business.

We do have many laws, anyone who has every ventured into a law library for the first time is amazed at the volume of volumes. I can't say I support the Roaches, though life on earth and in our oceans is interdependent and the elimination of any species can have unexpected consequences.

I believe the sin tax on alcohol and tobacco is warranted. Consider the societal costs to treat the chronic illnesses of chronic tobacco use, and the costs associated with crime, treatment and health issues associated with alcoholism.

On the other hand consider the costs of the failed war on drugs. Crime, enforcement, prosecution, imprisonment. There is no cost-benefit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like the rational conservatives have simply avoided this thread, likely to pause and think about the radical RINO element and the idiot fringe that has taken the conservative movement over the edge.

Maybe when you have something rational to say you'll get more conversation.

Do you actually believe you're a judge of what is and what is not rational? Do you know what the word means? Let me help, in an odd way bripat can assist. Read any post by bripat and you'll see the antithesis of rational.

You're welcome.

 

[Political Junky]

"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, with the help of the US, was responsible for the coup which took down the elected Democracy of Allende. The US supported it because they feared Marxism more than Fascism. The same thing went on later in Central America with Iran/Contra.

 

[westwall]

Those on the far right who claim to be conservatives and call all of us who question their ideology "commies", "Marxists", "Socialists" and "Leftists" (among other pejoratives) need to be called exactly what they are: Neo fascists.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Neo fascism is a political philosophy and movement that arose in Europe in the decades following World War II. Like earlier fascist movements, neo fascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed liberal individualism, attacked Marxist and other left-wing ideologies, indulged in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, and promoted populist right-wing economic programs. Unlike the fascists, however, neo fascist's placed more blame for their countries’ problems on non-European immigrants than on leftists and Jews"

Why do they hide behind a misnomer label, they're in no way or manner real conservatives? Neo fascists support economic policies which benefit the Corporate America and the power elite. As corporatist's many who support such policies are not in the same class as the rich and powerful; why they do is an interesting question best left to the psychologists.

You certainly should know. You're a progressive with the best of them. If you can't engineer mass arrests and gulags you just are beside yourself. We know...truly we know.

 

[westwall]

"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, with the help of the US, was responsible for the coup which took down the elected Democracy of Allende. The US supported it because they feared Marxism more than Fascism. The same thing went on later in Central America with Iran/Contra.

What's truly pathetic is the to are basically the same. Control is maintained by a small elite and the peasantry, of whichever "governmental type you choose", are screwed over.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yes, and my point is that in so far as Britannica ignores the economic aspect of fascism they're simply incorrect. It's not hard to see why, however, as fascism has become sort of a catch-all term that people apply to describe certain actions that they deem tyrannical, with no knowledge of what the actual term means. In that, Britannica is likely using the word fascism in its popularly degraded form. Regardless, fascism has a meaning, and it is in regards to an economic system. Yes, historically that economic system has been brought about by authoritarian and racist regimes, Mussolini and Hitler being the obvious examples, but it is indeed an economic system.

At this point we can say that fascism is (1) a capitalist type of economic organization, (2) in which the government accepts responsibility to make the economic system work at full energy, (3) using the device of state-created purchasing power effected by means of government borrowing and spending, and (4) which organizes the economic life of the people into industrial and professional groups to subject the system to control under the supervision of the state.

What Is Fascism? - John T. Flynn - Mises Daily

 

[bripat9643]

Looks like the rational conservatives have simply avoided this thread, likely to pause and think about the radical RINO element and the idiot fringe that has taken the conservative movement over the edge.

Your idea of a "rational conservative" is indistinguishable from a liberal.

 

[Iceweasel]

Looks like the rational conservatives have simply avoided this thread, likely to pause and think about the radical RINO element and the idiot fringe that has taken the conservative movement over the edge.

Maybe when you have something rational to say you'll get more conversation.

Do you actually believe you're a judge of what is and what is not rational? Do you know what the word means? Let me help, in an odd way bripat can assist. Read any post by bripat and you'll see the antithesis of rational.

You're welcome.

Maybe when you have something rational to say you'll get more conversation.

 

[Iceweasel]

We do have many laws, anyone who has every ventured into a law library for the first time is amazed at the volume of volumes. I can't say I support the Roaches, though life on earth and in our oceans is interdependent and the elimination of any species can have unexpected consequences.

Try to focus.

I believe the sin tax on alcohol and tobacco is warranted. Consider the societal costs to treat the chronic illnesses of chronic tobacco use, and the costs associated with crime, treatment and health issues associated with alcoholism.

On the other hand consider the costs of the failed war on drugs. Crime, enforcement, prosecution, imprisonment. There is no cost-benefit.

LOL. So there's no societal cost to drug use. Retard!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those on the far right who claim to be conservatives and call all of us who question their ideology "commies", "Marxists", "Socialists" and "Leftists" (among other pejoratives) need to be called exactly what they are: Neo fascists.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Neo fascism is a political philosophy and movement that arose in Europe in the decades following World War II. Like earlier fascist movements, neo fascism advocated extreme nationalism, opposed liberal individualism, attacked Marxist and other left-wing ideologies, indulged in racist and xenophobic scapegoating, and promoted populist right-wing economic programs. Unlike the fascists, however, neo fascist's placed more blame for their countries’ problems on non-European immigrants than on leftists and Jews"

Why do they hide behind a misnomer label, they're in no way or manner real conservatives? Neo fascists support economic policies which benefit the Corporate America and the power elite. As corporatist's many who support such policies are not in the same class as the rich and powerful; why they do is an interesting question best left to the psychologists.

You certainly should know. You're a progressive with the best of them. If you can't engineer mass arrests and gulags you just are beside yourself. We know...truly we know.

You know, you truly know? Paranoid Schizophrenics are cocksure they know the truth. Just saying.