The Problem of Fascism

[allixpeeke]

I tried to post this in the anti-Fascism forum, but it seems someone has blocked me from that forum, so I'll post it here.

LINK (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=536&sortorder=articledate)

[Amusing Scrotum]

allixpeeke, I think you need to clarify to us what you think Bush and America are, Socialist or Fascist.

This post gives the impression you think America is Fascist, however statements like this -


coming together to oppose our Socialist President and his war in Iraq.

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41061&hl=).

It seems to me that no one is going to take you seriously, if you call Bush and America, both Fascist and Socialist. Not that anyone is likely to take you very seriously anyway.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:36 PM
allixpeeke, I think you need to clarify to us what you think Bush and America are, Socialist or Fascist.

This post gives the impression you think America is Fascist, however statements like this -


coming together to oppose our Socialist President and his war in Iraq.

Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41061&hl=).

It seems to me that no one is going to take you seriously, if you call Bush and America, both Fascist and Socialist. Not that anyone is likely to take you very seriously anyway.
Politics are confusing for people who don't have a class analysis or an understanding of how and why states function or were developed.

Libertarians view the state as being somehow imposed on society through some sort of malevelent force and not as a product of society and a tool to run society by the ruling group in society.

To them FDR is anti-capitalist, yet he (and many businessmen at the time) thought he was "the savior of capitalism" because his reforms were able to ease class tentions in the US and prevent the strike-waves from becoming an all-out revolution.

THe linked article seems to suggest that fascism arose out of thin air and that because intulectuals didn't like free-market capitalism, keensian economics, fascism, and socialism came into vogue. Nobody thought that capitalism would work because capitalism was in a huge world-wide crisis!

This crisis caused different reactions from different parts of society. Workers struck and became revolutionaries which caused reaction from business intrests; so in Weimar Germany (Social-democrtic state i.e. capitalism with reforms for workers) the government used Frikorps to hunt down radicals and break strikes and worker insurrections. Nazism was an extention of this since they were doing what the Freikorps had done, but on a national level and many Nazi leaders came directly from the freikorps.

Libertarians don't understand marxism since they don't understand class. Marxism's aim isn't some disembodeyed state creating safty-nets for workers (like social-democrats), it's aim is showing how workers can run society for themselves and form their own government that will suit its needs. So governments can twist themselves into any pretzel shape they want, but as long as the ruling class is capitalists, that state ultimately is a capitalist one and will be centralized or decentralized based on the needs of business.

Libertarians vs. social-democracy or Kenesian states is less "capitalist vs. socialist" and more like "marxist vs. radical anarchist" it's just a different view of how to achieve the same thing.

[allixpeeke]

allixpeeke, I think you need to clarify to us what you think Bush and America are, Socialist or Fascist.

I mostly call Bush a Socialist to piss off Conservatives. I wore my BUSH IS A SOCIALIST tee shirt to the last College Republicans meeting.

In reality, I don't see much difference between Socialism and Fascism. They both view the individual as an expedient for some "greater good". They're both Collectivist ideologies which infringe upon the Free Market. The only real difference is in which they claim to aim for. Socialism aiming for equality, Fascism aiming for glory. Fascism and Stalinism are both militaristic, both have no regard for human life, both strive for power which they usurp from the government, whether there's consent or not.

I know that people have made an analogy of politics being a circle before, but really the extreme Left and extreme Right are quite similar. Anarchism, on the other hand, transcends the classic one-dimensional political spectrum. To even see where Anarchism or Liberty reign, one needs at least two dimensions.


It seems to me that no one is going to take you seriously, if you call Bush and America, both Fascist and Socialist.

I've not called America Fascist or Socialist. America has a mixed economy. It's split three ways between Socialism, Capitalism, and Corporatism.


Politics are confusing for people who don't have a class analysis or an understanding of how and why states function or were developed.

The class struggle isn't between the poor and the rich, because they hold a balance of power. The workers can unionise and use collective bargaining to get what they want.

The class struggle is between the individuals and the politician ruling class. This is because politicians monopolise power. They do what they want, and when they fuck up, rather than being fired, Bush just gives them a gold star and a promotion. But this extends further than just modern American politics. Throughout history, the class struggle has been between the Kings, Czars, Presidents, and Governers, and the people. Monarchies (Kings, Fuhrers, et. al.) are of course the worse offenders. But America, run under a two-party democratic-oligarchy, is no less likely to usurp freedom. The right to vote just makes people docile. "Well, I was given a choice between evil #1 and evil #2, and I chose the lesser." Like there's really choice under this duopoly. Either way, a tyrant take power, and more power, and still more power.

We the people struggle to breathe free. But it's hard when the politician ruling class monopolises the power.

States function with one goal in mind. As O'Brien points out in 1984 they don't seek power as a means to an end, they seek it as an end within itself.


To them FDR is anti-capitalist,...

He certainly was.


So governments can twist themselves into any pretzel shape they want, but as long as the ruling class is capitalists, that state ultimately is a capitalist one and will be centralized or decentralized based on the needs of business.

When the government is run by Big Business, that's not Capitalism, that's Corporatism.

[KC]

When the government is run by Big Business, that's not Capitalism, that's Corporatism.


Corporatism is a form of capitalism.

[colonelguppy]

do we really need to discuss what's wrong with fascism?

while were at it, lets also discuss the different aspects of why the sky is blue.

molecules in the ozone scatter high fregquency light, and absorb low frequency. fascinating. discuss

[Freedom Works]

Corporatism is a form of capitalism.
Not at all.
Corporatism is a form of Statism.

[KC]

Not at all.
Corporatism is a form of Statism.

"The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour."

That is the definition of capitalism. Since corporations are still "private ownership," it fits into the definition of capitalism. Corporatism is a form of capitalism.

[inquisitive_socialist]

so allix, you basically use your political views that are presented to cause problems and make inflammatory statements. your actually the trash that most people came to this website to avoid. people like you start riots during peace demonstrations and then go on t.v blaming the cops. You use bad logic and a flawed single dimensional picture to make fascism and socialism seem similar. how very retarded. take the intelligent step of learning alittle history before you run your mouth.

[colonelguppy]

corporatism needs some kind of government favoritism. it won't exist in free market conditions

[allixpeeke]

Corporatism is a form of capitalism.Not at all. Corporatism is just as anti-Capitalist as Socialism.

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7904/24uk.jpg


do we really need to discuss what's wrong with fascism?

Some would claim that the Bush administration is good, so obviously we do have to discuss why it's bad.


Corporatism is a form of Statism.

True.


"The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour."

That is the definition of capitalism.

Capitalism: any and all trade that is based solely on voluntary mutual consent.


Since corporations are still "private ownership," it fits into the definition of capitalism. Corporatism is a form of capitalism.

Corporatism uses government power to monopolise its own power. It rejects Free Trade in its use of protectionist policies. It rejects Free Competition, the crux of what makes Capitalism works. Capitalism opposes the State, and thus also opposes Corporatism.


so allix, you basically use your political views that are presented to cause problems and make inflammatory statements. your actually the trash that most people came to this website to avoid. people like you start riots during peace demonstrations and then go on t.v blaming the cops. You use bad logic and a flawed single dimensional picture to make fascism and socialism seem similar. how very retarded. take the intelligent step of learning alittle history before you run your mouth.

You obviously know nothing about me. If Conservatives get pissed at my tee shirt, that's on them. I have the right to write whatever comments I want on my property. (For the record, not one Republican complained to me about that shirt.)

I've never started a riot, or even considered such an action. That just makes the movement look bad.

I stated that Fascism and Socialism were similiar in my mind. This is entirely true, it is similar in my mind. I'd be lying to you if I claimed otherwise.


corporatism needs some kind of government favoritism. it won't exist in free market conditions

Exactly.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:50 PM

do we really need to discuss what's wrong with fascism?

Some would claim that the Bush administration is good, so obviously we do have to discuss why it's bad.
i wouldn't say that i'm at all pleased with the bush admin, but i also wouldn't describe it as fascist

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:50 AM
Capitalism: any and all trade that is based solely on voluntary mutual consent.

Define "voluntary", if you would.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by tunes+Oct 11 2005, 06:51 AM--> (tunes @ Oct 11 2005, 06:51 AM)
[email protected] 11 2005, 12:50 AM
Capitalism: any and all trade that is based solely on voluntary mutual consent.

Define "voluntary", if you would. [/b]
do or die, but not by my hand

[tunes]

Originally posted by visceroid+Oct 11 2005, 10:31 AM--> (visceroid @ Oct 11 2005, 10:31 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:51 AM

[email protected] 11 2005, 12:50 AM
Capitalism: any and all trade that is based solely on voluntary mutual consent.

Define "voluntary", if you would.
do or die, but not by my hand[/b]
So you are telling me if you own the means of my survival and I have nothing to offer other than my labor, and you still don't agree to give me work, the most just and reasonable solution to this is for me to peacefully die? There's no alternative?

Do you really believe this illusion of freedom and mutual consent will always hold up to the power of starvation and drive for necessity? The issue is private ownership of production. That is where the problem begins and where it continues to grow.

[Freedom Works]

So you are telling me if you own the means of my survival and I have nothing to offer other than my labor, and you still don't agree to give me work, the most just and reasonable solution to this is for me to peacefully die? There's no alternative?
Someone cannot own someone else's means of survival, because the means of survival is the individual.


Do you really believe this illusion of freedom and mutual consent will always hold up to the power of starvation and drive for necessity?
Businessmen don't make you starve - reality does.


The issue is private ownership of production. That is where the problem begins and where it continues to grow.
Actually, the problem comes from lack of private ownership.

[tunes]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 12 2005, 02:05 AM

Someone cannot own someone else's means of survival, because the means of survival is the individual.
The means of survival is the appropriation of food, water, shelter, etc. If everyone could acquire this without selling their labor to those who own these means, there would be no homelessness or starvation. But this is obviously not the case. Capitalists own these means of subsistence, and that is why workers are forced to sell their labor - so the workers can obtain these necessities.


Businessmen don't make you starve - reality does.
Businessmen who own the means of production....everyone's means of survival...is reality. Private ownership of production is reality.


Actually, the problem comes from lack of private ownership.
Whichever way you would like to rephrase the problem, sure. The majority of workers don't own or even decide on how they attain their means of survival. It is up to the capitalist. So yes, the problem is ownership for the capitalists, and lack of ownership for the workers.

[Freedom Works]

Capitalists own these means of subsistence, and that is why workers are forced to sell their labor - so the workers can obtain these necessities.
They are not necessities. You are just trying to justify using force against people because they have what you think you are entitled to.


Businessmen who own the means of production....everyone's means of survival...is reality. Private ownership of production is reality.
Regardless - they aren't making you starve.


Whichever way you would like to rephrase the problem, sure.
I can see how you would twist my words to make you believe that, but my point is that there needs to be privatization of the commons.

[tunes]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 12 2005, 03:49 AM
They are not necessities.
Food, water, shelter, and clothing are not necessities? One can survive without these? Why is it that people die every day without them?


You are just trying to justify using force against people because they have what you think you are entitled to.
You believe a few people are entitled to these means of production, and not everyone? Why, because these capitalists got there first? The capitalists acquired these means of production through force, and maintain this ownership through force, because they feel they are entitled to it - and no one else.


Regardless - they aren't making you starve.
The starvation of the workers, whose survival depends on the appropriation of food and water, who can find no other way to obtain these necessities other than selling their labor to the capitalists, cannot be attributed to the capitalist? The capitalists own it. There is no other way for a worker to acquire food other than through the capitalist. The capitalists maintain this relationship through private ownership of production.


I can see how you would twist my words to make you believe that, but my point is that there needs to be privatization of the commons.
I twisted your words? You simply changed the focus from the ownership of the capitalist to the lack of ownership of the worker. I was simply agreeing with you, that the problem can be looked at from both class perspectives. I said the problem was capitalists own the means of production. You rephrased the problem and said it is lack of ownership for everyone else. We are at a disagreement?

[Freedom Works]

First off, these are the definitions I am using:
deserve - opinion - I deserve to win the lottery
entitled - fact - I won the lottery, I am entitled to the money


Food, water, shelter, and clothing are not necessities?
No. Also, notice how you are vaugely defining necessities.


One can survive without these?
What one cannot survive without does not a necessity make.


Why is it that people die every day without them?
Some people die if they don't get certain drugs, is that a necessity too?


You believe a few people are entitled to these means of production, and not everyone?
Those that mix their labor with unclaimed property are entitled to the property, those that contract with one who has legitimately aquired property to trade their labor for wages are not mixing THEIR labor with it. This obviously does not apply to slavery, because slaves had no choice to labor.


Why, because these capitalists got there first?
Because they traded their legitimate property for it.


The capitalists acquired these means of production through force, and maintain this ownership through force, because they feel they are entitled to it - and no one else.
You claim they are not entitled to it, therefore the burdon of proof is upon you to prove they are not entitled to it. If you CAN prove they aren't entitled though - more power to you!


The starvation of the workers, whose survival depends on the appropriation of food and water, who can find no other way to obtain these necessities other than selling their labor to the capitalists, cannot be attributed to the capitalist?
I'm sorry, but there is ALWAYS another way, they NEVER have to sell their labor to capitalists, they choose to because they believe it will be more beneficial than their current situation.


There is no other way for a worker to acquire food other than through the capitalist.
PROVE IT - THIS IS EMOTIONAL RHETORIC THAT NEVER HOLDS BASIS IN FACT.


I twisted your words?
In your mind.


You simply changed the focus from the ownership of the capitalist to the lack of ownership of the worker.
No, I was talking of the high cost of land (which is detrimental to workers) which is caused by having commons (which is detrimental to the environment).

[KC]

No. Also, notice how you are vaugely defining necessities.

Necessity: something you need to survive. Food, water and shelter are the basic necessities of life. This was taught in grade school, for fucks sake.



What one cannot survive without does not a necessity make.

Yes it does. You need them to survive. It is a necessity for you to have them to live.



Some people die if they don't get certain drugs, is that a necessity too?


Wow, good job. Are you really this stupid? I mean, you really don't know that these are the three basic necessities of life? Did you pass highschool?



Those that mix their labor with unclaimed property are entitled to the property, those that contract with one who has legitimately aquired property to trade their labor for wages are not mixing THEIR labor with it. This obviously does not apply to slavery, because slaves had no choice to labor.

Many people aren't able to afford to "mix their labor with unclaimed property." They are forced to take a contract with the people that can afford it. They have no other choice than to die. Hence, they are slaves, of a sort. They are forced to work or they die. Slavery itself is very similar; the only difference being that the threat of being killed forced people to work. In this case, it is the threat of starving.



You claim they are not entitled to it, therefore the burdon of proof is upon you to prove they are not entitled to it. If you CAN prove they aren't entitled though - more power to you!

They take money that the workers are entitled to for themselves.



I'm sorry, but there is ALWAYS another way, they NEVER have to sell their labor to capitalists, they choose to because they believe it will be more beneficial than their current situation.

Really? There is always another way? Tell me, if they don't have enough money to start a business, then what is this magical other way?



PROVE IT - THIS IS EMOTIONAL RHETORIC THAT NEVER HOLDS BASIS IN FACT.


How do people acquire food? Through the exchange with money. How do people acquire money? Two ways: through a business or through a job. The first way is petty-bourgeois or bourgeois. The second is proletarian. Since we are talking about the proletarian, we will discuss the second option. Since the proletarian is forced to get a job (because they can't start a business!) they are forced to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie for a price that the bourgeoisie sets.

[Freedom Works]

Necessity: something you need to survive.
For how long?


Food, water and shelter are the basic necessities of life. This was taught in grade school, for fucks sake.
It was also taught that drugs are bad and should be illegal - doesn't make it true.


Yes it does. You need them to survive. It is a necessity for you to have them to live.
For how long?


Are you really this stupid?
Refrain from the ad hominems.


I mean, you really don't know that these are the three basic necessities of life?
Because a "government" education told me they are necessary, they are?


Did you pass highschool?
No.


Many people aren't able to afford to "mix their labor with unclaimed property."
Cop out. They CAN ALWAYS afford it, they just believe thier current situation has higher rewards than the risk of failure by seeking new land.


They are forced to take a contract with the people that can afford it.
They choose to.


They have no other choice than to die.
Prove it.


Hence, they are slaves, of a sort. They are forced to work or they die. Slavery itself is very similar; the only difference being that the threat of being killed forced people to work. In this case, it is the threat of starving.
Have you ever heard of proof, or do you believe because you can imagine a situation 'IT MUST EXIST!'?


They take money that the workers are entitled to for themselves.
Prove it. Workers exploit capitalists.


Tell me, if they don't have enough money to start a business, then what is this magical other way?
To move.


How do people acquire food?
The way they feel is in their best interest.


Through the exchange with money.
Wealth is not necessarily money, and what about communists who steal other's food?


How do people acquire money?
Trade.


Two ways: through a business or through a job.
Or they could try to justify theft by rationalizing that 'capitalists exploit workers' so it is ok to steal from them.


The first way is petty-bourgeois or bourgeois. The second is proletarian.
Classifying 'surviving' in such a way is extremely ignorant.


Since the proletarian is forced to get a job (because they can't start a business!) they are forced to sell their labor to the bourgeoisie for a price that the bourgeoisie sets.
Who is forcing the proletariat to get a job? The proletariat. If the proletariat is forcing himself, is that force? No.

The proletariat decides to get a job because they feel it is in their best interests.

[KC]

For how long?

Your whole life!



It was also taught that drugs are bad and should be illegal - doesn't make it true.


So you don't think that a person needs food water and shelter to live?! Are you serious?



For how long?

Your whole life!



Refrain from the ad hominems.

Refrain from being stupid and I will.



Because a "government" education told me they are necessary, they are?


Because common sense, science, and instinct tells you they are, genius.



No.

That explains everything.



Cop out. They CAN ALWAYS afford it, they just believe thier current situation has higher rewards than the risk of failure by seeking new land.

Afford: To manage or bear without unacceptable disadvantage or risk to oneself.



They choose to.

Sure, they could choose not to. And die. If you consider that a choice then you're insane.



Prove it.

Tell me what other choices they would have.



Have you ever heard of proof, or do you believe because you can imagine a situation 'IT MUST EXIST!'?


Well, in a debate, if I say something you disagree with, you would usually tell me why you disagree with me and try to prove my point wrong. My assertion stands because it is mere common sense. Unless you have anything to add that would counter my assertion, then please don't cop out by saying "prove it".



Prove it. Workers exploit capitalists.

Workers created the value of the commodity. The capitalists sell it for a profit. The capitalists keep the profit, which the workers created and are entitled to.



To move.

What does that accomplish?



The way they feel is in their best interest.

Can you ever agree with anyone here on anything? Are you afraid to or something? Or do you feel a need to post vague one-liners that don't add to the debate?



Wealth is not necessarily money, and what about communists who steal other's food?


Who said anything about wealth? I said money. What about communists who steal other's food?



Trade.

Trading of labour for money or commodities for money. The proletarian can only afford the first.



Classifying 'surviving' in such a way is extremely ignorant.


How so?



Who is forcing the proletariat to get a job? The proletariat. If the proletariat is forcing himself, is that force? No.

The proletariat decides to get a job because they feel it is in their best interests.

Who is forcing the slave to work for his master? The slave. If the slave is forcing himself, is that force? To you I guess not.

[Luís Henrique]

Capitalism: any and all trade that is based solely on voluntary mutual consent.

Well, if this was capitalism, then socialists wouldn't be anti-capitalist.

But capitalist is a different thing. Capitalism is the trade of labour-force for its value, being labour-force a commodity which use produces more than its value (trade, besides, based not on voluntary mutual consent, but in the monopoly of means of production by the capitalists).


Corporatism uses government power to monopolise its own power.

Which, still, is private economic power.


It rejects Free Trade in its use of protectionist policies.

Because this works were free trade fails.


It rejects Free Competition, the crux of what makes Capitalism works.

Yet it directly derives from free competition. The big fishes eat the smaller; the biggest fishes remaining are... the corporations.

Who else can stop that, except the State?


Capitalism opposes the State, and thus also opposes Corporatism.

Who would protect tiny poor Capitalist from big ugly Corporation?

The problem is, what you call capitalism is, at best, old-fashioned XIX century concorrential capitalism - and, at worst, just petty-bourgeois simple-exchange economy. Those systems have disappeared, because they cannot stand against the concentrational forces characteristic of capitalist societies.

Real capitalism, as observed in the real world, is what you call Corporatism.

In fact, your opinions are anti-capitalistic. They are just clouded behind deep petty-bourgeois ideology of the variety called (very against all principles of intelectual property) "libertarianism".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You obviously know nothing about me. If Conservatives get pissed at my tee shirt, that's on them. I have the right to write whatever comments I want on my property.

The Conservatives held a meeting in your property?
Why did you allow them if you dislike their views?
Once you did allow them, how is it correct to behave in such a provocative way?


(For the record, not one Republican complained to me about that shirt.)

Well. That is certainly scary.


I've never started a riot, or even considered such an action. That just makes the movement look bad.

Which movement, if it is not improper to ask?

Luís Henrique

[tunes]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 13 2005, 05:39 AM
They choose to.

Why must you always use emotional abstractions to defend your untenable positions? Choice? Have you honestly ever thought about what this term implies, or are you simply repeating what people have told you throughout your life? Choice, at its most fundamental level, implies that you could have done otherwise in some situation. Emphasis on could have. Where's the observable proof for this? To suggest one "could have" went about differently in a given situation is not observable or verifiable. Can you observe someone in a situation doing otherwise? Of course not. No matter how many emotional abstractions you replace with "could have", you will always still remain in metaphysics. Stop using "choice" as an explanation for material occurrences in the world. It is weakening your reasoning.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 12:50 AM
[ IMG]http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/7904/24uk.jpg[ /IMG]
How can we find the image, and discover where do we fit into it?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 13 2005, 05:39 AM

I mean, you really don't know that these are the three basic necessities of life?
Because a "government" education told me they are necessary, they are?


Come on, be a rebel and choose to go without water for a week. Don't do what the teacher-man tells ya to do!

Drugs being necessities? Well, stricktly speaking, no; but in modern society we have the ability to meet people's medical "needs", but capitalism prevents everyone from having acess to it. Why let drugs sit on the shelf when people need them? Why produce more prozac or viagra than drugs that people will die without?