9/12 March on Washington
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
Shag, we're talking here...
I know what fascism is - I know what socialism is - and I know the great gulf between them.
However, I sort of am interested in Cal's idea that 'some' of the actions of the administration are socialist, and if he thinks that other forms of political/economic systems can also just be sliced and diced and fitted in with something else.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Most Americans believe the socialist/progressive reforms adopted since 1870 have been successful, dude. That's why we still have so many of them.
We abandoned the laissez faire mind set in the 1870's, and adopted the socialist/progressive mind set. Since then we have implemented many socialist/progressive reforms, to mitigate the harshness of laissez faire capitalism, while preserving our economic capacity for wealth creation.
******************
During the century that had elapsed since Jefferson became President there had been in our country a riot of individualistic materialism, under which complete freedom for the individual turned out in practice to mean perfect freedom for the strong to wrong the weak.
--Theodore Roosevelt.
--Theodore Roosevelt.
Well, dude, which ones have been successful?
Or which ones have people grown dependent on....
Redistributing someone else's wealth will make you popular... until the system is unable to support it.
The issue here isn't just popularity, it's sustainability.
We didn't abandon it, but we certainly have progressively moved away from it.
And it's now time to recognize this, recognize the mistake, and correct it before it's too late.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/33004753
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
That all depends on one's perspective I suppose. When I find something that works, I tend to stay with it until it quits working or I find something even better.
We abandoned laissez faire, dude. We adopted a much better system of regulated capitalism.
What have you ever done to suggest that under a laissez faire system you wouldn't be one of the wretched masses toiling twelve hours a day for a dollar a week in a hell hole of a factory owned by a mighty industrial overlord like me?
Have you ever been a highly successful entrepreneur?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Quit posing dude. No successful entrepreneur has your political and social mindset.
Entrepreneur's create... you espouse taking.
Therefore, you are not by any stretch of the imagination a "entrepreneur".
What you are is a socialist who wants desperately to be in a position of power, like a union boss, where you can tell people what to do and how to live, while you do whatever you please.
In other words, Typical Liberal.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Well, dude, you got a point there. Nobody on earth has the same mind set I do. However, how much money would like to bet that my dog's house cost more than the one you live it?
I've got more money than Dick Cheney, dude.
Dude, we're all Socialist. This is a Socialist Nation. Every president since 1900 has been a socialist. Socialism is what save us from the hell hole this nation was in the 1870's.
Note" I use the word "Socialism" the way you right wing nut jobbers do to label everything from the Interstate Commerce Act to our child labor laws.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude, I'm one of the guys that owns the health insurance company that takes your money for twenty years, then kicks you to the curb when you get cancer, and then gets you to defend us.
Dude, I'm rich because I screwed people like you.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm not a liberal. I'm a rich ruthless socialist lawyer.
If this was 1870, you'd be working in my factory for a dollar a week.
Laissez faire capitalism would crush you, dude.
But you didn't find something that worked, you found something that felt good at for the moment. Big difference.
We never had complete laissez faire.
However, we have increased regulation- and most of it has been a failure and led to greater problems.
Beside being smarter, taller, stronger, and better looking than you?
Because technology moved forward.
Movement was not restricted. Education and information became more abundant. Globalization. Automation. Capitalism moved us forward.
But unions aren't necessarily socialist. Collective bargaining is a market reaction to a monopoly. When someone has a monopoly on employment, then the workers at a disadvantage. In the past, populations weren't mobile, they didn't have the ability to leave a town where there was only ONE employer.
The progressive movement is responsible for the UNINTENDED consequence associated with it. After the work force became empowered and mobile, the unions became the ONLY source of work, a monopoly. But for some reason, the foolish progressive economist fail to realize that reversed situation is ALSO bad for the economy.
The politics of the unions are another toxic progressive byproduct that reward seniority and talent skill or work.
So, you're simply wrong, the progressive agenda has hurt this country.
People weren't aware of it at the time,but we're about to get the bill.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Name the great American who accused the courts of leaving both the nation and the several States well-nigh impotent to deal with the great business combinations?
The courts, not unnaturally, but most regrettably, and to the grave detriment of the people and of their own standing, had for a quarter of a century been on the whole the agents of reaction, and by conflicting decisions which, however, in their sum were hostile to the interests of the people, had left both the nation and the several States well-nigh impotent to deal with the great business combinations.
So, did you miss the article I posted on this very subject or are you ignoring it? Either way, the article shows your characterization in the above quote to be inherently misleading.
People, this is really the only effective way of dealing with a bottom-feeding troll like the Jagger-bot.
It says that Nazi Germany was Socialist shag - nothing about what 'real' fascism is... In fact the only mention of fascism was...So, did you miss the article I posted on this very subject or are you ignoring it? Either way, the article shows your characterization in the above quote to be inherently misleading.
We also do not yet have Fascism, though we are moving towards it.
Do you know the difference between Nazism and Fascism?
Oh, there are much, much better ways of dealing with Mr Jagger, Shag. Once you leave the school yard, you learn all sort of 'better ways'.
Are you even capable of not misleading in anything that can in any way be politicized? Do you have any shame?
Shag - I had edited my post slightly to add - do you know the difference between Nazism and Fascism?
Your articles address Nazism, and not Fascism...
Nazism is a form of Fascism and Fascism is a unique form of Marxism. You are working to mislead and downplay that fact.
In fact, your knowledge on ideology in general has been consistently lacking on this forum. It is something that you generally ignore unless it can be manipulated to fit your preconceived notion. You have even actively worked to avoid discussing political philosophy in the past.
Now, all of a sudden you have an intricate understanding of Fascisim and Socialism in general and Nazism (as a political philosophy) specifically?
At best, your history in this forum has indicated a passing familiarity with the superficial trappings of the various philosophies; notably how the philosophies are enacted. When it comes to showing a substantive understanding of the core philosophical principles of the various philosophies, you have shown a complete lack of familiarity and desperately start intellectually "grasping at straws" to cover up your ignorance.
Combine that with your clear lack of any intellectual integrity and ruthless propagandizing and I see no reason to waste time with you.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
FredFlash, a.k.a. Frederick T. Slicer, doesn't leave a forum unless he's banned - which he's been before, from other forums.
Well, I hate to agree with Jagger - but Shag - he is right - Fascism is a form of Marxism -
Just maybe Shag - if you understood the two terms, you might 'get' it. Fascism has been described as everything from an anti-Marxism form of Socialism to a new form of capitalistic dictatorship. But to say that Fascism is a form of Marxism.... Heck, see what the Marxists say about Fascism...
<snip>Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.
The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoeis), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of massive capitalists, without needing a revolution. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy. <snip>
Just maybe Shag - if you understood the two terms, you might 'get' it. Fascism has been described as everything from an anti-Marxism form of Socialism to a new form of capitalistic dictatorship. But to say that Fascism is a form of Marxism.... Heck, see what the Marxists say about Fascism...
<snip>Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.
The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoeis), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of massive capitalists, without needing a revolution. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy. <snip>
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Interesting definition, considering the source.Well, I hate to agree with Jagger - but Shag - he is right - Fascism is a form of Marxism -
Just maybe Shag - if you understood the two terms, you might 'get' it. Fascism has been described as everything from an anti-Marxism form of Socialism to a new form of capitalistic dictatorship. But to say that Fascism is a form of Marxism.... Heck, see what the Marxists say about Fascism...
<snip>Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.
The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoeis), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of massive capitalists, without needing a revolution. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy. <snip>
I guess since any source will do, I can use Wikipedia, which offers a VERY different definition:
Well, I hate to agree with Jagger - but Shag - he is right - Fascism is a form of Marxism -
Just maybe Shag - if you understood the two terms, you might 'get' it. Fascism has been described as everything from an anti-Marxism form of Socialism to a new form of capitalistic dictatorship. But to say that Fascism is a form of Marxism.... Heck, see what the Marxists say about Fascism...
<snip>Fascism is right-wing, fiercely nationalist, subjectivist in philosophy, and totalitarian in practice. It is an extreme reactionary form of capitalist government. Fascism began in Italy (1922-43), Germany (1933-45), Spain (1939-75), and various other nations, starting generally in the time between the first and second world war. The origin of the term comes from the Italian word fascismo, derived from the Latin fasces (a bundle of elm or birch rods containing an ax: once a symbol of authority in ancient Rome). Benito Mussolini adopted the symbol as the emblem of the Italian Fascist movement in 1919.
The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes (see petty bourgeoeis), with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of massive capitalists, without needing a revolution. These capitalists along with the top-tier leaders they create become fascism's ruling aristocracy. <snip>
I was using Marxism in the broad sense that is synonymous with Socialism. I probably should have simply said socialism. But there is a difference between orthodox marxism and the broader marxist school of thought.
Fascism is in no way capitalist. That article I posted clearly spells that it. It maintains the appearance of capitalism by maintain a purely superficial separation between business and the state. However, substantively there is a lot of synergy between the two.