International Fascism

[∞]

International Fascism

To understand the breakdown of the world economy one must understand the imperialist initiatives occurring globally. Imperialism in these times has been used to “ad-hominemise” the global expansion of multi-national corporations. However imperialism is adjective and varies in severity. In today’s case imperialism isn’t as direct economically and leaves a shadowy yet blatant impression on our culture. Today’s imperialist agenda is aimed towards the establishment of these corporations with benefiting the political elite in third-world countries, in the case of central and South America. For example NAFTA during the PRI’s regime has been the offspring of American- style capitalism and the PRI’s version of Socialism, thus we have the “third way,” exactly what fascism envisions. Evidence suggests the strengthening of class divisions and the increasing power of the government when globalization reaps the globe.
So how exactly does Globalization give birth to “the third way”? Or in that matter, what is the “third way”. The “third way” is an adroit blend of authoritarian socialism and free market principles that Reagan-Friedman drones worship today. Basically it’s corporatism, though there is the use of unions who fail to win over the political elite who’d rather benefit from the survival of big business. So really it uses severe forms of hierarchy to dominate people and cater to the rich. Fascism also emphasizes a caste system made of disciplined workers who are subservient to their wage-masters. To be honest it’s barely socialistic and unintentionally falls on the right on the political spectrum (in my opinion, the most accurate one is the political compass, it can be observed at polticalcompass.org). So the power of capitalism seems to power socialism, this by itself provides some evidence that capitalism indeed, is authoritarian. However this isn’t about that, we must furthermore analyze the socio-economic factors of globalization.

In the case of NAFTA and the trade with Mexico the only democracy that existed has been taken away. Article 27 of the Mexican constitution seems to be a prime example, “The property of all land and water within national territory is originally owned by the Nation, who has the right to transfer this ownership to particulars. Hence, private property is a privilege created by the Nation. Expropriations may only be made when there is a public utility cause. The State will always have the right to impose on private property constraints dictated by "public interest". The State will also regulate the exploitation of natural resources based on social benefits and the equal distribution of wealth. The state is also responsible for conservation and ecological considerations.” Needless to say both ecological resource and indigenous land has been victim to this liberalization. The neo-liberal myth indicates that this free-trade brings democratization to a state but according to Mara Steffan it does nothing of the sort, “As the analysis will highlight, the Salinas administration (1988-1994) adapted the ruling coalition and state-society relations to the imperatives of neo-liberalism, thus making the free-trade agreement politically viable. The result was political paralysis rather than a positive political opening.” . This is prime example of our modern day hierarchy and our willingness to satisfy those on top. So the question on all our minds should be “How do we fucking stop this.” The answer is easy, either grassroots organization or armed struggle. Though I rather taken a liken to the Zapitistas who are ready tom protect the indigenous with their guns.

[Wolf Larson]

For the 'third way' see John Maynard Keynes. What you're calling corporatism is simply capitalism's natural inclination towards monopoly. Capitalism has indeed gone global and it has always depended on the state to do such. Another great read you might be interested in is "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi).

I agree NAFTA is just a parasitic colonial land/recourse/labor grab. CAFTA/NAFTA all of the "free trade" agreements are parasitic. I read what the US did to Japan to "open up the Japanese markets" to the US. We brought our entire NAVY fleet to Japan and dictated the how's why's and whens. Those were the days when things were more obvious. Before Keynes World Bank/IMF were running the show.

[∞]

For the 'third way' see John Maynard Keynes. What you're calling corporatism is simply capitalism's natural inclinationwards monopoly. Capitalism has indeed gone global and it has always depended on the state to do such. Another great read you might be interested in is "The Great Transformation" by ]Karl Polanyi[/URL].

I agree NAFTA is just a parasitic colonial land/recourse/labor grab. CAFTA/NAFTA all of the "free trade" agreements are parasitic. I read what the US did to Japan to "open up the Japanese markets" to the US. We brought our entire NAVY fleet to Japan and dictated the how's why's and whens. Those were the days when things were more obvious. Before Keynes World Bank/IMF were running the show.

If Keynes where to see how much his idea promotes totalitarianism he'd cry like a *****. It still runs off the corporate sector so I call it "corporatism" which is fundamentally the same as what you suggest. I'll read up on that transition article. Yeah I heard off the Japan markets opening up and it's typical and horrendous. Looks like Stalin and Mussolini had a love-child to me. Ohhh the Nazbols just got a huge boner for this one.

[Wolf Larson]

what you're saying is corporatism is the merger between the state and private sector. What I'm saying is the state and private sector have NEVER been two separate entities.Hence the reference to "The Great Transformation". It's a book by Karl Polanyi :)

[Revolutionair]

My views on capitalism.

Lower stage capitalism ("anarcho"-capitalism):
No or small state, small competing businesses.

Middle stage capitalism (corporatism):
Big state, businesses merged to a big corporation.

[Wolf Larson]

My views on capitalism.

Lower stage capitalism ("anarcho"-capitalism):
No or small state, small competing businesses.

Middle stage capitalism (corporatism):
Big state, businesses merged to a big corporation.
Anarcho capitalism has never existed. Only in the minds of idiots in fly over states in the USA. Murray Rothbard was a quack.

Capitalism has never and cannot exist without a state. When people use the term corporatism it takes away from the actual impact of capitalism. What we have today is simply the natural shift towards monopoly which "free market" advocates blame on the state so they call it corporatism. In reality it's just capitalism. Plain old capitalism.

[∞]

what you're saying is corporatism is the merger between the state and private sector. What I'm saying is the state and private sector have NEVER been two separate entities.Hence the reference to "The Great Transformation". It's a book by Karl Polanyi :)

I can see that, but to appeal to the "Anarcho" Capitalism I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Any free Marketeer would tell me Medieval Iceland had no actual state yet it remained capitalistic. However in practice it does tend to apply statism

[∞]

And I consider corporatism a form of capitalism, consisting of some extremely capitalist elements

[∞]

I'll read that book...

[ComradeOm]

International Fascism

To understand the breakdown of the world economy one must understand the imperialist initiatives occurring globally. Imperialism in these times has been used to “ad-hominemise” the global expansion of multi-national corporations. However imperialism is adjective and varies in severity. In today’s case imperialism isn’t as direct economically and leaves a shadowy yet blatant impression on our culture. Today’s imperialist agenda is aimed towards the establishment of these corporations with benefiting the political elite in third-world countries, in the case of central and South America. For example NAFTA during the PRI’s regime has been the offspring of American- style capitalism and the PRI’s version of Socialism, thus we have the “third way,” exactly what fascism envisions. Evidence suggests the strengthening of class divisions and the increasing power of the government when globalization reaps the globe.
So how exactly does Globalization give birth to “the third way”? Or in that matter, what is the “third way”. The “third way” is an adroit blend of authoritarian socialism and free market principles that Reagan-Friedman drones worship today. Basically it’s corporatism, though there is the use of unions who fail to win over the political elite who’d rather benefit from the survival of big business. So really it uses severe forms of hierarchy to dominate people and cater to the rich. Fascism also emphasizes a caste system made of disciplined workers who are subservient to their wage-masters. To be honest it’s barely socialistic and unintentionally falls on the right on the political spectrum (in my opinion, the most accurate one is the political compass, it can be observed at polticalcompass.org). So the power of capitalism seems to power socialism, this by itself provides some evidence that capitalism indeed, is authoritarian. However this isn’t about that, we must furthermore analyze the socio-economic factors of globalizationThere is absolutely nothing in this post, apart from wordplay, to suggest that neo-liberal policies are in any way equatable to fascism

[IslamicMarxist]

International Fascism... Any country supporting dominance and oppression of the third world and supporting the "Super Power".

[∞]

There is absolutely nothing in this post, apart from wordplay, to suggest that neo-liberal policies are in any way equatable to fascism

I didn't use any "wordplay" I very comprehensibly stated how how our economic stance resembles fascism. Bill Clinton who you may know was also a fervent admirer of the third way.

[∞]

I'm afraid that you've done nothing of the sort. You've taken the fact that corporations exist under neo-liberal regimes, as they do in all capitalist environments, and suddenly equated it to the 'corporatism' of fascism. Any meaningful (or "comprehensive") comparisons of the two economic systems would reveal gaping differences. Its particularly perverse using NAFTA, a free trade agreement, as an example when fascist regimes were notoriously keen on autarky

Quote:
Bill Clinton who you may know was also a fervent admirer of the third way.
Which brings us back to wordplay. The 'Third Way' of Clinton/Blair has nothing in common, beyond the term, with the 'Third Way' of Hitler/Mussolini. In substance they are entirely different

Actually figure out what I'm trying to say before interpreting things like the common aspie. I equated it to fascism by showing it's 1. Strengthening of class antagonisms 2. Violation of the poor and their constitutional rights 3. The merging of both socialist and capitalist principles, and the state's subservience to corporate interest. ... Tell me how this has 'nothing' to do with fascism.

The thesaurus I own also points out some synonyms: Nazism, absolutism, authoritarianism, autocracy, bureaucracy, despotism, one-party system, party government, racism, regimentation, totalitarianism, etc.

You can find most of this in what I've been trying to illustrate. That is until you came and smeared your simplistic shit all over it.

[ComradeOm]

I didn't use any "wordplay" I very comprehensibly stated how how our economic stance resembles fascismI'm afraid that you've done nothing of the sort. You've taken the fact that corporations exist under neo-liberal regimes, as they do in all capitalist environments, and suddenly equated it to the 'corporatism' of fascism. Any meaningful (or "comprehensive") comparisons of the two economic systems would reveal gaping differences. Its particularly perverse using NAFTA, a free trade agreement, as an example when fascist regimes were notoriously keen on autarky


Bill Clinton who you may know was also a fervent admirer of the third way.Which brings us back to wordplay. The 'Third Way' of Clinton/Blair has nothing in common, beyond the term, with the 'Third Way' of Hitler/Mussolini. In substance they are entirely different

[∞]

[QUOTE=ComradeOm;1786636]I'm afraid that you've done nothing of the sort. You've taken the fact that corporations exist under neo-liberal regimes, as they do in all capitalist environments, and suddenly equated it to the 'corporatism' of fascism. Any meaningful (or "comprehensive") comparisons of the two economic systems would reveal gaping differences. Its particularly perverse using NAFTA, a free trade agreement, as an example when fascist regimes were notoriously keen on autarky

Thus I gave it the name "International Fascism"

Which brings us back to wordplay. The 'Third Way' of Clinton/Blair has nothing in common, beyond the term, with the 'Third Way' of Hitler/Mussolini. In substance they are entirely different

I tell you why it's adjectively in the same direction. Fascism is absolutely adjective. I'm not saying it's 100% fascist I'm saying, due to these "free trade agreements" blatant violations of rights, and strengthening the state is reminiscent to fascism

[Wolf Larson]

If Keynes where to see how much his idea promotes totalitarianism he'd cry like a *****. It still runs off the corporate sector so I call it "corporatism" which is fundamentally the same as what you suggest. I'll read up on that transition article. Yeah I heard off the Japan markets opening up and it's typical and horrendous. Looks like Stalin and Mussolini had a love-child to me. Ohhh the Nazbols just got a huge boner for this one.
Keynes was colonialist and racist who thought it was his job to "civilize" the globe. Him and the Fabian Socialists were, well, scum bags. Capitalism is simply doing what capitalism must do to survive. Concentrate wealth and power in a minorities hands. Corporations are simply the modern manifestation of concentrated wealth.

The state has always been the capitalists tool not some "fascist" regime independent of the capitalist class. It exists to marginalize labor/protect "private property" rights first and foremost. To keep the current (illegitimate) established order legitimate.


Capitalists run the state.....the state does not run capitalism. This "merger" between the state and private sector happened centuries ago. Without it capitalism could have never existed. :)

[∞]

Keynes was colonialist and racist who thought it was his job to "civilize" the globe. Him and the Fabian Socialists were, well, scum bags. Capitalism is simply doing what capitalism must do to survive. Concentrate wealth and power in a minorities hands. Corporations are simply the modern manifestation of concentrated wealth.

The state has always been the capitalists tool not some "fascist" regime independent of the capitalist class. It exists to marginalize labor/protect "private property" rights first and foremost. To keep the current (illegitimate) established order legitimate.


Capitalists run the state.....the state does not run capitalism. This "merger" between the state and private sector happened centuries ago. Without it capitalism could have never existed. :)

No Fascism is when the capitalism runs the state not vice versa. The policies of Clinton where very well inspired by Keynes, a man whom influenced him.
The PRI also was corporatist, that was part of it's ideology.

[Wolf Larson]

No Fascism is when the capitalism runs the state not vice versa. The policies of Clinton where very well inspired by Keynes, a man whom influenced him.
Capitalists have always run the modern state. What do you think the American/French revolution was about? The overthrow of royalty/church and the instalation of capitalist rule. The modern state has always been the capitalists tool. Without it capitalism cannot exist. There has never been a "free market". :)

[∞]

International Fascism... Any country supporting dominance and oppression of the third world and supporting the "Super Power".

Exactly

[Wolf Larson]

Exactly
But that has been capitalism from day one. From the subjugation of native americans to the colonial rule of africa/japan/south america. in order for capitalism to survive it must perpetually expand. in order to perpetually expand new markets must be "opened" up for exploitation. This is why I gave you the example of the US bringing it's entire NAVY fleet to Japan pre ww2 to force them into 'opening up their markets'. business as usual from day one. capitalism.

[∞]

Capitalists have always run the modern state. What do you think the American/French revolution was about? The overthrow of royalty/church and the instalation of capitalist rule. The modern state has always been the capitalists tool. Without it capitalism cannot exist. There has never been a "free market". :)

I agree, to put it simply, this is becoming more severe. The private companies are making gay anal sex with the state at this point. What Austrians may call "Real" free market would exist outside of the state, smaller businesses would fail or make it. Not advanced monopolization and subservience to the nanny-state. It's not a ditto-copy of fascism, but it lingers in that direction. I don't believe in a real free market either, but theoretically it's supposed to exist. So I give the Austrians the benefit of the doubt. Think about how powerful the American state has gotten...Homeland Security, tapping into people's privacy, it's ridiculous. America is slowly going down that path, and we're in for economic stagnation beyond our wildest dreams.

[ComradeOm]

Thus I gave it the name "International Fascism"So you call something "Fascist" when it has nothing in common, beyond a phrase or two, with actual fascism?

Believe it or not, fascism is not some buzzword that can be thrown around all will-nilly. It is a historical tendency that comprises a number of particular policies which, when taken together, form a unique political ideology. Calling something 'fascist' when it is nothing of the sort is not just inaccurate, its also lazy


...I'm saying, due to these "free trade agreements" blatant violations of rights, and strengthening the state is reminiscent to fascismOr startlingly reminiscent of capitalism. There is absolutely nothing unique in fascism's tendency to "strengthen the state" - if it tends to do so, the assertion is extremely questionable - as this self-aggrandisement is a feature, to varying degrees, of almost all bourgeois states. Nor are they particular scrupulous about human rights. I repeat that nothing in your above posts demonstrates any sort of connection, beyond the most vague and superficial, to actual fascism

[Wolf Larson]

"So I give the Austrians the benefit of the doubt"


No thanks :)

[∞]

So you call something "Fascist" when it has nothing in common, beyond a phrase or two, with actual fascism?

Believe it or not, fascism is not some buzzword that can be thrown around all will-nilly. It is a historical tendency that comprises a number of particular policies which, when taken together, form a unique political ideology. Calling something 'fascist' when it is nothing of the sort is not just inaccurate, its also lazy

Or startlingly reminiscent of capitalism. There is absolutely nothing unique in fascism's tendency to "strengthen the state" - if it tends to do so, the assertion is extremely questionable - as this self-aggrandisement is a feature, to varying degrees, of almost all bourgeois states. Nor are they particular scrupulous about human rights. I repeat that nothing in your above posts demonstrates any sort of connection, beyond the most vague and superficial, to actual fascism

I'm saying that our current sate is heading towards actual fascism which had existed during Mussolini's and Hitler's regimes. If you look at it macroeconmically it's very identical, I've already cited examples. And yes, fascism is a Totalitarian Capitalism, while our Capitalism was Neo-Liberal, it became very much the same as fascist-style capitalism. I think I'm confusing people here maybe I should change the title to "Pseudo-Fascist Imperialism"

[∞]

"So I give the Austrians the benefit of the doubt"


No thanks :)

To be fair, Medieval Iceland was considered so.

[ComradeOm]

If you look at it macroeconmically it's very identical, I've already cited examplesI repeat: No it is not. I cannot emphasise this enough. There are very few similarities, certainly in the macro sense, between the US today and Nazi Germany. The examples that you have provided, such as NAFTA, only reinforce this impression. I have pointed this out above, with the specific example of fascist autarky, only to have you gloss over it


And yes, fascism is a Totalitarian Capitalism, while our Capitalism was Neo-Liberal, it became very much the same as fascist-style capitalismSomething that you have conspicuously failed to demonstrate in this thread. You make vague references to 'strengthening the state' and 'violation of rights' but these simply do not convince. If you are going to allege that there are real parallels between the US today and historic fascist movements (even to the point of 'pseudo-fascism') then please elaborate... in detail


I think I'm confusing people here maybe I should change the title to "Pseudo-Fascist Imperialism" I think you should call it just 'Imperialism' :glare:

[Wolf Larson]

To be fair, Medieval Iceland was considered so.
Medieval Iceland is not an example of free market capitalism.

[∞]

Medieval Iceland is not an example of free market capitalism.

Well every Market Anarchist would tell you otherwise

[∞]

I repeat: No it is not. I cannot emphasise this enough. There are very few similarities, certainly in the macro sense, between the US today and Nazi Germany. The examples that you have provided, such as NAFTA, only reinforce this impression. I have pointed this out above, with the specific example of fascist autarky, only to have you gloss over it

Something that you have conspicuously failed to demonstrate in this thread. You make vague references to 'strengthening the state' and 'violation of rights' but these simply do not convince. If you are going to allege that there are real parallels between the US today and historic fascist movements (even to the point of 'pseudo-fascism') then please elaborate... in detail

I think you should call it just 'Imperialism' :glare:

I think they are striking similarities. Because normal imperialism doesn't have totalitarian regimes take indigenous land and hand it over to landlords and corporations. Especially when this state(PRI) calls itself "Socialist International" and is funding corporations then we have 1. The Third way 2. Totalitarianism 3. Construction of a caste system....all components of fascism. Nowhere in Capitalism is this supposed to happen, but everywhere fascism it is.

[Wolf Larson]

Well every Market Anarchist would tell you otherwise
Ya they always try to tell me otherwise each time I dispel their free market myths on youtube/myspace/facebook/mises forums etc.

They're delusional social Darwinists. reactionaries. Idiots. They don't understand primitive accumulation and the role the state had in it let alone the capitalist system itself. They understand the bourgeois propaganda and the perversions Rothbard cursed us with. The perversions of Tucker, Spooner and Stirner. They don't usually even understand Smith's positions (especially on public education), why private property is coercive and what compels people to be wage slaves.

They actually think capitalism is voluntary. I could go on and on.

[ComradeOm]

Because normal imperialism doesn't have totalitarian regimes take indigenous land and hand it over to landlords and corporationsI don't understand what you are saying here


Especially when this state(PRI) calls itself "Socialist International" and is funding corporations then we have 1. The Third way 2. Totalitarianism 3. Construction of a caste system....all components of fascism. Nowhere in Capitalism is this supposed to happen, but everywhere fascism it is.1) I don't give a damn what the state calls itself. It is completely irrelevant that both Clinton and Hitler used the term 'Third Way'. It is an historical accident and not one I want to hear mote of

2) Leaving aside my problems with the very concept of totalitarianism, there is absolutely no meaningful comparison between the state apparatus in Nazi Germany (or Fascist Italy) and the USA. Anyone who asserts otherwise is speaking out of ignorance. Or can you point out the thousands of socialists or trade unions who are being rounded up and murdered by the US secret police. Can you point to the extra-constitutional figure with the leadership cult? Can you show me a state endorsed party with a unique position of power? What about the self-sufficiency economic policies and through militarisation of society? Etc, etc

In each of these areas you will find major differences between the US today and fascist states of the past. Irreconcilable differences, I would say

3) Construction of a caste system? Examples from today and the past please

[∞]

I don't understand what you are saying here


1) I don't give a damn what the state calls itself. It is completely irrelevant that both Clinton and Hitler used the term 'Third Way'. It is an historical accident and not one I want to hear mote of
Why not? from my understanding Clinton's third way was a mix of Capitalism and "Social" Democracy, very Fabian and Keynesian by nature. And sure it wan't as authoritarian as Hitler, but it sure as hell was in the same tradition.

2) Leaving aside my problems with the very concept of totalitarianism, there is absolutely no meaningful comparison between the state apparatus in Nazi Germany (or Fascist Italy) and the USA. Anyone who asserts otherwise is speaking out of ignorance. Or can you point out the thousands of socialists or trade unions who are being rounded up and murdered by the US secret police. Can you point to the extra-constitutional figure with the leadership cult? Can you show me a state endorsed party with a unique position of power? What about the self-sufficiency economic policies and through militarisation of society? Etc, etc Once again I've said that it wasn't exactly fascism, however it is similar. Just because Unions aren't being systematically killed doesn't mean that it's not fascistic. Unions however where being banned by the Mexican PRI. Where the Indigenous had collectivized land, the PRI single-handily destroyed this union of peasant solidarity.


In each of these areas you will find major differences between the US today and fascist states of the past. Irreconcilable differences, I would say Some may say major, I say the gap is shrinking.


3) Construction of a caste system? Examples from today and the past please Yes, during the PRI's administration had strengthened the feudal system. (i.e. Italian peasantry) Politically there was a ONE party rule, dissidents where jail and executed. Workers movements where crushed by police.

[∞]

Ya they always try to tell me otherwise each time I dispel their free market myths on youtube/myspace/facebook/mises forums etc.

They're delusional social Darwinists. reactionaries. Idiots. They don't understand primitive accumulation and the role the state had in it let alone the capitalist system itself. They understand the bourgeois propaganda and the perversions Rothbard cursed us with. The perversions of Tucker, Spooner and Stirner. They don't usually even understand Smith's positions (especially on public education), why private property is coercive and what compels people to be wage slaves.

They actually think capitalism is voluntary. I could go on and on.

Well I guess for their sake I tried being politically correct
:laugh:

[∞]

But that has been capitalism from day one. From the subjugation of native americans to the colonial rule of africa/japan/south america. in order for capitalism to survive it must perpetually expand. in order to perpetually expand new markets must be "opened" up for exploitation. This is why I gave you the example of the US bringing it's entire NAVY fleet to Japan pre ww2 to force them into 'opening up their markets'. business as usual from day one. capitalism.

Primitive Capitalism,yes. With our current reliance on Corporate power, road to fascism

[ComradeOm]

Why not? from my understanding Clinton's third way was a mix of Capitalism and "Social" Democracy, very Fabian and Keynesian by nature. And sure it wan't as authoritarian as Hitler, but it sure as hell was in the same traditionNo it wasn't. Leaving aside the historical context, the Third Way (liberal) sought to reposition political parties in the centre ground of parliamentary politics. If it was anything it was an electoral strategy. In contrast the Third Position (fascist) was a deliberate rejection of both capitalist democracy and communism. In policies, objectives, and actions the two are entirely different

You might as well claim that Portishead are fascist for releasing an album called Third :rolleyes:

[∞]

No it wasn't. Leaving aside the historical context, the Third Way (liberal) sought to reposition political parties in the centre ground of parliamentary politics. If it was anything it was an electoral strategy. In contrast the Third Position (fascist) was a deliberate rejection of both capitalist democracy and communism. In policies, objectives, and actions the two are entirely different

You might as well claim that Portishead are fascist for releasing an album called Third :rolleyes:

Wrong again, Fascism seeks to combine both Socialism and Capitalism to something "beyond" the two. Clinton's idea was to seek something "beyond" Parliamentary capitalism and social democracy by combining the two into the Keynesian shock-therapy format. Same tradition, less authoritarian. And I don't know if you know this but third positionism is part of "the Third way". There is different forms of the third-way like there is different forms of socialism or communism

[Wolf Larson]

Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi)

READ HIM :)

[∞]

Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi) Karl Polanyi (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi)

READ HIM :)

Aw sweet man, this is awesome. This guy did what I've been trying to do, thanks man major props.

[Blackscare]

Capitalism has never and cannot exist without a state.


I disagree. I think that the chances of such an occurrence would be slim because it would be very difficult to segue into, but it is possible that corporations could employ basically private armies (armed "collection" agencies, or some other such nonsense to protect property rights). I'd consider this even more of a frightening situation than a traditional system of state-backed capital.

The state only serves to legitimize private property and enforce it's laws, there's no inherent reason this duty could not be contracted out, however disorganized and arbitrary that may wind up being.

Also, of course, there is the argument that such a system would essentially be some sort of a state anyway, in practice.

[Wolf Larson]

I disagree. I think that the chances of such an occurrence would be slim because it would be very difficult to segue into, but it is possible that corporations could employ basically private armies (armed "collection" agencies, or some other such nonsense to protect property rights). I'd consider this even more of a frightening situation than a traditional system of state-backed capital.

The state only serves to legitimize private property and enforce it's laws, there's no inherent reason this duty could not be contracted out, however disorganized and arbitrary that may wind up being.

Also, of course, there is the argument that such a system would essentially be some sort of a state anyway, in practice.
That is simply a privatized state :) It would be a state non the less....not that differnt than the one we have now- of by and for the rich.

[∞]

I'm afraid that you've done nothing of the sort. You've taken the fact that corporations exist under neo-liberal regimes, as they do in all capitalist environments, and suddenly equated it to the 'corporatism' of fascism. Any meaningful (or "comprehensive") comparisons of the two economic systems would reveal gaping differences. Its particularly perverse using NAFTA, a free trade agreement, as an example when fascist regimes were notoriously keen on autarky

Which brings us back to wordplay. The 'Third Way' of Clinton/Blair has nothing in common, beyond the term, with the 'Third Way' of Hitler/Mussolini. In substance they are entirely different

This is wrong btw... MERCANTILISM IS FASCIST