When you guys mean fascist..... [Archive]

JudeObscure84

2nd March 2006, 21:43

is it just a deragatory term for an opposing ideology you dislike or do you really think that many conservatives in the US really are fascist like Mussolini?

Let me break this down further. I have a cousin in Malaga, Spain who has sadly joined a neo-nazi gang and promotes a fringe political group there called the National Syndicalistas de Las Jons. He passes out hate literature against the Socialist government but then he also passed out hate literature against the previous PM Jose Maria Aznar, who was a conservative leader and friend to George W. Bush.
He tells me that the conservative governement of Aznar and George W. Bush support international finance ( I guess he means globalization) and want to destroy the national soverignty of Spain with cheap labor and immigration. He also thinks the War in Iraq is a benefit only to the capitalists and the supporters of a Zionist backed democratization against the will of the Muslim people.
The reason why he hates the Socialist government too is because they want to promote similar things as the conservatives only through socialist means instead. Apparently each side of the global conquest was started by the Jews.

So then I began to wonder just why the Che Lives crowd believe that GWB is a Fascist when a self-proclaimed Fascist is giving me his ideas and the ideas of several organizations in Spain who promote Fascism. And all of them are against the neo-liberal conservative parties around the world.

So I ask again, is the term fascist a deragatory term or do you guys really believe that most conservative, republican or liberal democratic parties are fascist?

bezdomni

2nd March 2006, 21:54

JudeObscure84

2nd March 2006, 22:01

When we are talking about GWB, we don't necessarily mean that he is entirely a fascist, we just try to bring up similarities between Bush and fascists (like Hitler and Mussolini). He obviously is not a self-proclaimed fascist, but the road to hell is lined with "good" intentions

I can understand the good intentions thing. But that term can be applied to several nations in a state of war or how they keep the peace in their country. For example, were FDR and Lincoln fascist during wartime? I think its inescapable for any nation to not enfoce the ideology of that nation without seeming "fascist". Oh, and I am NOT trying to appologize for any violations of human rights but trying to explain why they happen.

However, when a person is banned from the site for being a "fascist" they are typically openly and truly fascist. Holocaust denial, social darwinism, love for Hitler/Mussolini, racism...etc are all traits of fascists.

I thought most Communists were social darwinists? Anyways, there is more to being a fascist then just the typical traits of what they espouse. Im speaking of thier writings, doctrine and mantra. I was commenting on how it doesnt resemble much to Enlightment Liberalism or the ideals of American politics.

cyu

3rd March 2006, 00:30

The problem with social darwinism is that it focuses on competition between individuals. The development of religions and political/economic systems has shown that survival of groups of people depends on cooperation, not competition.

Instead, the darwinism that occurs is competition between ideologies that best enable their participants to cooperate.

bezdomni

3rd March 2006, 01:00

Comrade, I strongly recommend that you read up on fascism outside of the forum. The definition will deviate according to who you ask, just as the definition of a communist deviates according to who you ask.

Mussolini was probably the most true fascist conceivable. Read up on what happened in Italy around World War II and Mussolini's ideas.

Also, a little known fact is that fascism does not assume racism...racism is usually just the "meat on the bone", so to speak.

And no, FDR was not a fascist...there is a difference between authoritarianism and fascism. Fascism is authoritarianism, while authoritarianism is not necessarily fascism.

JKP

3rd March 2006, 01:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:29 PM

I thought most Communists were social darwinists?
What. The. Fuck.

Communism is the superlative humanist idealogy.

JudeObscure84

3rd March 2006, 05:24

Comrade, I strongly recommend that you read up on fascism outside of the forum. The definition will deviate according to who you ask, just as the definition of a communist deviates according to who you ask.

Mussolini was probably the most true fascist conceivable. Read up on what happened in Italy around World War II and Mussolini's ideas.

I've read most of the writings of Mussolini and some other fascist theotricians. I am a history major. It seems as though Fascism was a rejection of Enlightment Liberalism and Communism. They wanted to go back to the guild socialist system or corporate syndicalism.
It wasnt exactly right wing in the sense of other traditional authoritarian governments like Pinochet or Chiang Kai Shek, because it was very ideologically driven and based on a Marxist heresy; syndicalism.

JudeObscure84

3rd March 2006, 06:27

I mean I would hope that you guys really know that American politics is not "right" in the traditional term, right? America is a liberal society, founded on the precepts of Enlightment Liberalism (well, on paper atleast). Out of the enlightement sprung out the Liberal and the Socialist. The liberal favored a republic or liberal democracy and the socialist favored something similar but with well you know socialism. Then came Marxand Communism yada yada....

Right wing is reserved for military or authoritrian rule. Fascist is really a rejection of both liberalism and communism and favored pushing syndicalist ideology using some right wing tactics.

So in essense, Liberalism is just a competing left ideology with Communism and Socialism. I dont know why its so reffered to as "right" or "fascist" simply because it prefers capitalism.

JKP

3rd March 2006, 06:35

It's better if you don't use "left" and "right" since those terms have too many different meanings. Be specific.

JudeObscure84

3rd March 2006, 06:40

It's better if you don't use "left" and "right" since those terms have too many different meanings. Be specific.

ofcourse they do. I just find it childish that people have to resort to using a deragatory slur on an opposing party. I wouldnt call any leftist I disagreed with a Stalinist. I guess it cus I am a history major and hate to see it being so misused. :D

Zak

3rd March 2006, 07:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:55 AM

Right wing is reserved for military or authoritrian rule. Fascist is really a rejection of both liberalism and communism and favored pushing syndicalist ideology using some right wing tactics.

So in essense, Liberalism is just a competing left ideology with Communism and Socialism. I dont know why its so reffered to as "right" or "fascist" simply because it prefers capitalism.
If your a history major i think you would argue that facism is the regime of Musolini. Any other use is just like calling someone a Nazi. It dosent mean anything its just slang, there are no real facists anymore.

ColinH

3rd March 2006, 13:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:55 AM
So in essense, Liberalism is just a competing left ideology with Communism and Socialism. I dont know why its so reffered to as "right" or "fascist" simply because it prefers capitalism.
Because the right-wing in society typically favours tradition over change. Originally liberalism took a laissez-faire approach to economics, but some liberals responded to socialist criticism and became what are known as reform liberals, which are likely the liberals you see today. Liberalism today is at best an attempt at being "centrist." It is not a competing leftist ideology.

Oh, and fascism is simply a dictatorship of the extreme right through the merger of state and business leadership, usually accompanied with belligerent nationalism.

JudeObscure84

3rd March 2006, 19:42

Because the right-wing in society typically favours tradition over change. Originally liberalism took a laissez-faire approach to economics, but some liberals responded to socialist criticism and became what are known as reform liberals, which are likely the liberals you see today. Liberalism today is at best an attempt at being "centrist." It is not a competing leftist ideology.

But the tradition of the country is a liberal ideology so the conservatives of today were the liberals of the past. That has nothing to do with being right wing.Modern Liberals today are centrist and favor a mixed economy but they are influenced by some socialist aspects. My entire point was that liberalism itself is a left ideology that was against the rightists of the past that supported monarchy or military rule. Whether they are conservative republicans or liberal democrats, they are still liberals.

Oh, and fascism is simply a dictatorship of the extreme right through the merger of state and business leadership, usually accompanied with belligerent nationalism.

That is such a shoddy and cheap term used by many reactionary Marxist-Leninists out there to defame any opposing ideology. Right Wing is Suharto, Marcos of the Philipines, or the Shah of Iran. Fascism is more complex than just military nationalist rule.

Oswald Mosley, one of the famous fascist theotricians explains the difference in an interview with William F. Buckley:

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, what about the Greek Colonels? Would you say that that's a Fascist society?

SIR OSWALD: No, again, I shouldn't. You see, that's in the Franco category; that is a military, rather than a Fascist, movement.

MR. BUCKLEY: Is there a Fascist state - is there an incumbent Fascist state?

SIR OSWALD: There is no Fascist state, and fascism does not exist. It was a national creed which died in the Thirties, and the main reason for its non-revival is that any dynamic person who was drawn to that kind of thing would now be a European. You see, we were, obviously, national as I said before, but that was when we had a great Empire. And it was the thing to do. This was our task, our immediate task. I was always, myself, a passionate European in feeling and psychology, as my early Parliament speeches will show. I spent every moment I could in France and in Europe generally, in my spare time. But my political task was to develop the Empire. Now, the Empire after the war was gone; that is one of the things I complain about. We needn't go into that. And I then implemented my passionate Europeanism by declaring in 1940 — in October I think it was, no, May 1940 — for a European nation. By this term, I meant Europe as much an integrated state as Britain, France, Germany, or, indeed. America is today. America is rather the model in that respect, because you are united states –[/I]
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/background/firingline.htm

ColinH

3rd March 2006, 20:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:10 PM
That is such a shoddy and cheap term used by many reactionary Marxist-Leninists out there to defame any opposing ideology.

How odd that I got that definition straight from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Right Wing is Suharto, Marcos of the Philipines, or the Shah of Iran. Fascism is more complex than just military nationalist rule.

I never said it was just military nationalist rule. It's an odd phenomenon that has popped up in the past and could be staring us right in the face soon enough. Notice how I put "merger of state and business leadership."

But the tradition of the country is a liberal ideology so the conservatives of today were the liberals of the past. That has nothing to do with being right wing. Modern Liberals today are centrist and favor a mixed economy but they are influenced by some socialist aspects.

That has much to do with being right-wing. As I said before, the right typically favours tradition as a basis for society. If you live in a liberal society for long enough, than liberalism is your tradition, and the more "progressive" your view is, than the further left you appear to others.

I see what you mean when you say the conservatives of today were the liberals of the past. It just sort of shows that society ends up moving ahead to a point where the old ways are just no longer seen as acceptable by the vast majority, and thus the conservatives themselves have to adjust in order to "keep up with the times." All of that is very generalized, I know.

My entire point was that liberalism itself is a left ideology that was against the rightists of the past that supported monarchy or military rule. Whether they are conservative republicans or liberal democrats, they are still liberals.

It was a left ideology when it emerged, being pretty radical at the time. Not so much now. Advanced capitalist countries today do describe themselves as "liberal democracies," so I can see your point that anybody who partcipates in that system is in some way a political liberal.

CrazyModerate

3rd March 2006, 20:53

Bush isn't a hard fascist, but many of his policies resemble fascist policy. Such as national supremacy of Americans over others, aggressive expansionism, and restrictions on personal liberties.

JudeObscure84

3rd March 2006, 22:31

How odd that I got that definition straight from the American Heritage Dictionary

which typically defines the typical fascist with a lower case F. the deragatory term most use to define a suppressive regime.

I never said it was just military nationalist rule. It's an odd phenomenon that has popped up in the past and could be staring us right in the face soon enough. Notice how I put "merger of state and business leadership."

What is this merger of state and business statement? then most mixed economies especially the ones in the EU are fascist. There was a reason for the stringent control of economics in the fascist model but it wasnt based on anything like "corporate power" or "cronyism" like many leftists shout today or welfare state like conservatives shout. It was a system based on the mass concentration of a single party or union controlling the state to meet the needs of the people. Thier economic system was corporate based guild socialism or syndicalism.

That has much to do with being right-wing. As I said before, the right typically favours tradition as a basis for society. If you live in a liberal society for long enough, than liberalism is your tradition, and the more "progressive" your view is, than the further left you appear to others.

I see what you are saying. So if you live in a communist society long enough and communism is your tradition the more liberal you are the further you appear left to others? I mean I guess I could see this analogy.

It was a left ideology when it emerged, being pretty radical at the time. Not so much now. Advanced capitalist countries today do describe themselves as "liberal democracies," so I can see your point that anybody who partcipates in that system is in some way a political liberal.

Liberalism will always be liberalism regardless if its Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken. The little disputes they have together is really just childish and partisan. I dont understand how they keep the populace divided so much into think that both sides are alien to each other and dont represent "america".
The founding fathers were also a big mix of everything like today. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams duked it out in writing. Jefferson was more of a liberal deist and the Quincy a federalist christian republican. But they were both for a liberal market and society. Its the same thing.

cyu

4th March 2006, 02:03

Right wing is reserved for military or authoritrian rule.

So in essense, Liberalism is just a competing left ideology with Communism and Socialism. I dont know why its so reffered to as "right" or "fascist" simply because it prefers capitalism.

If right wing is authoritarian rule, what is the type of rule you find in the typical capitalist corporation? Is it not authoritarian?

Personally, I think the terms left and right are too vague. Applying them to things like abortion and stem cell research make even less sense. Anyway, just thought I'd point out the lack of the "competing left ideology" in corporate structure.

SocialistGenius

4th March 2006, 02:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:52 AM

Comrade, I strongly recommend that you read up on fascism outside of the forum. The definition will deviate according to who you ask, just as the definition of a communist deviates according to who you ask.

Mussolini was probably the most true fascist conceivable. Read up on what happened in Italy around World War II and Mussolini's ideas.

I've read most of the writings of Mussolini and some other fascist theotricians. I am a history major. It seems as though Fascism was a rejection of Enlightment Liberalism and Communism. They wanted to go back to the guild socialist system or corporate syndicalism.
It wasnt exactly right wing in the sense of other traditional authoritarian governments like Pinochet or Chiang Kai Shek, because it was very ideologically driven and based on a Marxist heresy; syndicalism.
The real meaning of fascism, invented by and according to Mussolini, is corporatism, or the merging of corporate businesses with the state government. Other key traits are the subversion of the individual to the state, the loss of civil liberties and rights, and rule-by and worship of one "supreme leader" who is viewed as almost god-like by his consituency.

JudeObscure84

4th March 2006, 06:44

The real meaning of fascism, invented by and according to Mussolini, is corporatism, or the merging of corporate businesses with the state government. Other key traits are the subversion of the individual to the state, the loss of civil liberties and rights, and rule-by and worship of one "supreme leader" who is viewed as almost god-like by his consituency.

OMG, stop it with the over simplification of a doctrine that was well thought out by evil men. I wouldnt sit here and tell you like a clasical liberal propaganist that communism is the anti-liberty, stealing, pinko, anti-individual, statist system, because I know that you have read tons of stuff on Marxist doctrine that can combat silly little terms.

That quote that eveyone uses by Mussolni about the merging of business and the state is questionable to many historians. So far as I heard and I may be wrong, there is no direct translation of that overused quote in Italian or in any of the writings of Mussolini.

Secondly, his use of the word corporate is constantly misused. He did not mean corporate as a CEO Enron like corporation. He meant a system of guilds or syndicates. He meant it was an excercise in power by a body politic organized into corporate filas that eliminated political parties by managing all political participation into state-managed unions.
And the individual was not lost to the state but to the party or union. This is another huge misconception that is overblown by people who want to misconstruct history to fit thier agenda. Havent any of you seen Triumph of the Will at all? In it Hitler recants those who believe that they are blind followers of the state by stating that they are not, that they own the state by means of thier party in which they soley follow. They would never submit to state that was NOT fascist. Therfore the party owns the state which the will of the people becomes the will of the state.

Im very sorry to have a spasm over this but I think that if there is going to be any serious discussion on what constitutes as fascist (so you can use it on anyone you disagree with to make your point sound better) at least know what true fascism really is. By most of the stuff you ambigously described above you could say Cuba, North Korea and China are fascist.

JudeObscure84

4th March 2006, 06:48

If right wing is authoritarian rule, what is the type of rule you find in the typical capitalist corporation? Is it not authoritarian?
I was speaking of governments not corporations. Its not used as a tool of enforcement. By that logic was the CNT authoritarian?

Personally, I think the terms left and right are too vague. Applying them to things like abortion and stem cell research make even less sense. Anyway, just thought I'd point out the lack of the "competing left ideology" in corporate structure.

What I meant was the ideology of liberalism being the cousin of socialism because they both were nursed into thier prime during the Englightment.

cyu

4th March 2006, 19:52

ComradeOm

4th March 2006, 19:56

Pffft fascists are revisionists

JudeObscure84

4th March 2006, 20:02

Why the difference between governments and corporations? If democratic rule is good for one, why doesn't it apply to the other?

because liberal economics is based upon a market and thats what really dictates the corporation, not the CEO. any milanta drinking, tums chewing exec knows he is in the hands of supply and demand. the consumer can be the real dictator.
In a fascist or even syndicalist system, that is eliminated.

A government has the power to use force since that is what its bascially there for.

cyu

4th March 2006, 20:17

because liberal economics is based upon a market and thats what really dictates the corporation, not the CEO. any milanta drinking, tums chewing exec knows he is in the hands of supply and demand. the consumer can be the real dictator.

Ah, but employee controlled corporations would listen to the consumer at least as much as the CEO. Why wouldn't they in market conditions?

I have no problem with markets, provided the participants have relatively equal amounts of spending power. The problem with overconcentration of wealth is that it makes the market economy less and less able to produce enough for all the participants of the economy. As the gap between rich and poor increases, more and more labor and raw materials are devoted to those who can spend more, leaving less and less production being directed to everyone else.

The result is an economy that cannot produce enough for everyone. It's pretty obvious if you go to any capitalist country and look at all the poor wandering the streets next to expensive high rises.

JudeObscure84

4th March 2006, 21:01

Ah, but employee controlled corporations would listen to the consumer at least as much as the CEO. Why wouldn't they in market conditions?

I have no problem with markets, provided the participants have relatively equal amounts of spending power. The problem with overconcentration of wealth is that it makes the market economy less and less able to produce enough for all the participants of the economy. As the gap between rich and poor increases, more and more labor and raw materials are devoted to those who can spend more, leaving less and less production being directed to everyone else.

The result is an economy that cannot produce enough for everyone. It's pretty obvious if you go to any capitalist country and look at all the poor wandering the streets next to expensive high rises.

It depends on thats countries exspense on other things like an educated populace, how much govt. intervention is in the markets. I mean look at it this way. If I am a wall street banker that decides to invest in an african country, how many people are going to know about investing or commerical capital? next to none, unless you are part of the aristocratic class. That artisocratic class invests in the bankers and helps spur the economy of that country. The gap between rich and poor will always be there, but the poor would be better off then they were before because a new opportunity has arrived. its the whole trickle down economics thing. the rich would get richer but so would the poor even though it really wouldnt make much of a difference in thier class status. So then its up to the country's state to decide if they want to invest that wealth they've gained into thier populace or thier own pockets. Its a very realist way of looking at economics.
Im not trying to say its the best way but just explaining it. I favor a slightly more mixed economy with a market system and little welfare in areas of education, employment and health care.

But how did we get off into this topic? I was discussing the history of fascism and its relation to syndicalism.

JudeObscure84

4th March 2006, 21:16

Ah, but employee controlled corporations would listen to the consumer at least as much as the CEO. Why wouldn't they in market conditions?

But the CEO isnt really the big shot, he just collects a bigger check because he handles the priorities of the stockholders(the true owners). The stockholders pay him to run the company they've paid to create and invest in. You are also forgetting that there is the COO, the CFO and the president (sometimes they are the same).
The board of directors is chosen by the stockholders who oversee the managers or the CEOs. And all of them are dictated by the market and consumer confindence in thier product. I mean they dont rule over the workers, because their workers could quit or start a union and then the CEO would have to hear about it from the board of directors who would hear about it from the stockholders. They are all linked.

Much Commie Love

5th March 2006, 00:43

You really have a trust in the forces of Capitalism, doesn't you ;)
Well, to be quite frank with you..those are the rules of etiquette...
And how the 'model', is supposed to be. But, quite often it is broken!
As you yourself said, "sometimes they are the same".

For example, let's take a look at Enron:
What happened? Oh, maybe it was "just a mistake". When the same people hold same position they can create the figment of succsess. F.eg even being both the legislator and the man benefiting, and making a hoax company doing a trick, "proving" that it's not you doing the "trash work", bribing of revisors, maculating papers, getting the energy-regulation board on your side, etc., threathening employees indirectly or maybe even directly to "clean" the money, buying stocks to create artifical power to the company..and etc...etc...the shit goes on and on! They 'oversee' each-other as much as they benefit by it..but if the CEO/COO/CFO can pay them all off, then they'll look another way, or he'll replace them with one of his own, and then making someone look the other about that too. When the stockholders are the employees under the board of management which is really a quite few people, whaddya do? HUH!?

And the market "dictations"? Kept in check. Well, when you have a few positive stock-market reporters on your side, why worry? They controled it all. And the workers where in their grudge...until released, only to be declared bankrupt. Their little money - and the people outside fooled of the succsess - kept it goin...and then Titanic hit the iceberg as negative rumours swirled.

And pulling of half Florida's energy-network didn't help much either for their rep'utation. Artifical shortages is nice for profit, isn't it... I guess THAT's "Consumer confidence" for you. Hurray for trust :lol:

JudeObscure84

5th March 2006, 02:43

You really have a trust in the forces of Capitalism, doesn't you
Well, to be quite frank with you..those are the rules of etiquette...
And how the 'model', is supposed to be. But, quite often it is broken!
As you yourself said, "sometimes they are the same".

For example, let's take a look at Enron:
What happened? Oh, maybe it was "just a mistake". When the same people hold same position they can create the figment of succsess. F.eg even being both the legislator and the man benefiting, and making a hoax company doing a trick, "proving" that it's not you doing the "trash work", bribing of revisors, maculating papers, getting the energy-regulation board on your side, etc., threathening employees indirectly or maybe even directly to "clean" the money, buying stocks to create artifical power to the company..and etc...etc...the shit goes on and on! They 'oversee' each-other as much as they benefit by it..but if the CEO/COO/CFO can pay them all off, then they'll look another way, or he'll replace them with one of his own, and then making someone look the other about that too. When the stockholders are the employees under the board of management which is really a quite few people, whaddya do? HUH!?

And the market "dictations"? Kept in check. Well, when you have a few positive stock-market reporters on your side, why worry? They controled it all. And the workers where in their grudge...until released, only to be declared bankrupt. Their little money - and the people outside fooled of the succsess - kept it goin...and then Titanic hit the iceberg as negative rumours swirled.

And pulling of half Florida's energy-network didn't help much either for their rep'utation. Artifical shortages is nice for profit, isn't it... I guess THAT's "Consumer confidence" for you. Hurray for trust

Oh you mean corruption? Well that just eats a business up and it crumbles leaving the competition to take a bigger chunk of the market. This beats a giant state run monopoly that takes the whole country down with it. I would prefer a market economy anyday that has several competitors that can exploit the weaknesses of other companies. If one is exposed for being fraud the other company will do its best to represent itself as the legal entity to maximize profits and gain the losses of their competitor.
Plus, if a CEO did do that it would be subject to fraud and be punished by law. Its no different than stealing from a bank. Granted they're alot softer on corporate crime but they're still adament about bringing them down.

All of this is speculative anyways because not all corporations run like this. Not all corps. believe that cheating and fraud are means of gaining the most profit.

redstar2000

6th March 2006, 00:45

I would certainly grant the existence of an "ideological fascism" identified with the writings of Mussolini and other Italian writers.

But I also think we can speak of fascism in a broader sense...and that certainly includes a direct military dictatorship. The fascist "virtues" are military virtues...especially the principle of obedience to authority as the primary obligation.

When a leftist refers to an adversary as "fascist", s/he generally means that their views reflect, to one extent or another, fascist values, fascist methodology, or both.

Calling Bush "a fascist" is obviously rhetorical "over-kill"...but some of the things his regime has done are clearly "quasi-fascist" -- that is, they draw their inspiration from fascist ideology.

That's not to imply that Bush spends his evenings reading the collected speeches of Mussolini "looking for ideas". A lot of his "ideas" (really the ideas of his handlers) come from Plato via Leo Strauss who, if you like, "reinvented" a "kinder, gentler" fascism.

One of those ideas is that a "good state" has the duty to compel the citizenry to "be virtuous".

Another is that the world consists of the "struggle of nations for dominance".

Another concerns the role of religion: a pious citizenry is both obedient and virtuous.

Still another is that a nation must go to war each generation...lest the people "degenerate" into spineless pursuit of comfort and pleasure and lose their "warrior spirit".

And yet another concerns the role of women: they must accept and even glory in their primary role of bearing and raising the next generation of warriors.

It's not difficult to see how the Bush regime "translates" these fascist ideas into "American language" and even makes them sound like "traditional American values"...with some success in that regard. :o

Indeed, that may be Bush's real strength as the public representative of the American ruling class -- to take ideas that would be rejected if spoken plainly and invent language that makes those ideas sound legitimate and reasonable...at least to a substantial number of extremely foolish people.

It's pretty clear where the road to fascism leads...ask any German or Japanese old enough to remember the final years of World War II.

The living envy the dead!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

JudeObscure84

6th March 2006, 08:47

You people havent the slightest clue of what fascism is. its just a silly catchprhase to make your opponent sound vicious.

Saddam Hussiens Iraq was fascist.
the Taliban was fascist.

Bush and America aren't. The most you could say is that he is like Lincoln or FDR during wartime.
And the whole quasi-fascist thing is also a spin. No free country in the world can be held up to such high moral standards to where anything and everything deemed by others is quasi-fascist. States are either exerting thier authority or keeping peace. Sticking fascist into the equation is just a way to add drama to the effect. Other non democratic states can range from authoritarian to totalitarian.

Jeez, talk about false consciousness. you people would totally missed out on the nazis in wwII with this same logic.

cyu

6th March 2006, 18:29

The gap between rich and poor will always be there, but the poor would be better off then they were before because a new opportunity has arrived. its the whole trickle down economics thing.

The way the market economy works is something like this: each dollar spent represents one economic vote that helps determine what is produced and who gets the result. This would be close to economic democracy if everyone had approximately equal amounts of money. But as the wealthy get an ever greater percentage of the money, what is produced is devoted to an ever shrinking number of people. The wealthy become ever bigger parasites on the productive power of the economy. Sure the poor many be marginally better off as technology improves, but the difference is between whether the average person is much better off or just a little better off.

But the CEO isnt really the big shot, he just collects a bigger check because he handles the priorities of the stockholders(the true owners). The stockholders pay him to run the company they've paid to create and invest in.

If the CEO is really worth what he is paid, then he should be able to justify it to the employees. As for shareholders, they do no work at all - if conservatives are against welfare mothers getting money for doing nothing, anarchists / communists are against shareholders getting even more money for doing nothing... and not only that, they have the power to destroy people's lives by taking away their jobs, which would not be the case if employees had the right to assume control of their companies.

JudeObscure84

6th March 2006, 19:25

Sure the poor many be marginally better off as technology improves, but the difference is between whether the average person is much better off or just a little better off.

First off you describing a more aristocratic society than a liberal one.

Secondly, you're basing this on a presupposition that there is supposed to be some sort of universal justice when it comes to economics. No economist believes that for the second thing you are taught is that resources are scarse so you have to make due with you have. The poor shoudlnt be inclined to recieve anything for no one owes them anything. They wouldnt have jobs or skills to sell if there wasnt a "greedy" capitalist to invest in a factory.
This is the only realist possiblity for any poor class. To find work in a capitalist run society and hope that the state can provide education to get out of thier class with the taxes they contribute.

What is with the constant struggle to come up with a system that eliminates what has always existed? Contribute to what is already in place and has offered the best possible hope. Economics 101.

If the CEO is really worth what he is paid, then he should be able to justify it to the employees. As for shareholders, they do no work at all - if conservatives are against welfare mothers getting money for doing nothing, anarchists / communists are against shareholders getting even more money for doing nothing... and not only that, they have the power to destroy people's lives by taking away their jobs, which would not be the case if employees had the right to assume control of their companies.

The CEO does justify it by managing thier working conditions and keeping stability within the company. If the workers stir up trouble its the CEO that hears about it from the board of directors. As for the shareholders, they rely on the CEO, The board and the workers to keep thier product in line which then has to be subject to the market place. Do you know what risk means? Many of those stockholders didnt just come up with the money overnight. They worked at other enterprises to gain money to invest in bigger ones. But all of them require risk. If one bolt falls off they all crash and lose tons of money. AND that is not good for the workers.

cyu

7th March 2006, 01:10

Secondly, you're basing this on a presupposition that there is supposed to be some sort of universal justice when it comes to economics. No economist believes that for the second thing you are taught is that resources are scarse so you have to make due with you have. The poor shoudlnt be inclined to recieve anything for no one owes them anything.

Economic systems exist only because there are political systems. If the politics of a region changes, then the economic system will change as well. Justice definitely does exist in politics. People form a government based on what will benefit them the most. If they agree that the system is not working to their benefit, then they change the political and economic system.

The "poor" only exist as a matter of politics. If they can't simply assume control of unused land to grow food (as the Landless Workers Movement of Brazil are doing) or assume control of their companies (as is happening in Argentina), it is only because the politics of the region makes it illegal for them to do so. If the people decide the increasing gap between rich and poor are hurting them, are you going to claim some divine authority exists that prevents them from changing things?

The CEO does justify it by managing thier working conditions and keeping stability within the company. If the workers stir up trouble its the CEO that hears about it from the board of directors. As for the shareholders, they rely on the CEO, The board and the workers to keep thier product in line which then has to be subject to the market place.

The problem with the system of shareholders and top-down management of companies is the gap between rich and poor. Those at the top pay themselves more money, not because the employees agree they've earned what they're paid, but because they are in power. Now this wouldn't be such a problem if one person being rich doesn't hurt anybody else.

But the fact is, the fact that the wealthy exist does hurt everyone else. They cause a greater percentage of the productive output of the economy to be directed to serve their interests, becoming ever greater parasites on the general population the wealthier they get, leaving less and less resources available to serve everyone else.

JudeObscure84

7th March 2006, 06:53

Economic systems exist only because there are political systems. If the politics of a region changes, then the economic system will change as well. Justice definitely does exist in politics. People form a government based on what will benefit them the most. If they agree that the system is not working to their benefit, then they change the political and economic system.

So you admit that the state has the force in this equation, not the market? The market itself changes because of tampering from the state. When that doesnt benefit the people then they change it again to see if they can force the market to comply with them. Economists, especially liberal ones, see the market as abstract and outside of their force. It cannot be constrained, only guided like a river. According to Von Mises, each state is subject to the laws that guide the marketplace. They cant escape it. They can only tamper with it through thier politics.

The "poor" only exist as a matter of politics. If they can't simply assume control of unused land to grow food (as the Landless Workers Movement of Brazil are doing) or assume control of their companies (as is happening in Argentina), it is only because the politics of the region makes it illegal for them to do so. If the people decide the increasing gap between rich and poor are hurting them, are you going to claim some divine authority exists that prevents them from changing things?

The poor exist because of scarcity. And who says that top priority should go to the poor because they're poor. The only option they have is to sell their labor or if the rich feel like being charitable. Or the third option if thier government feels like being a bit more liberal and offer to have them educated to open thier job market.
I am not going to claim that there is some divine authority that prevents them from changing things, because its not divine, its just its not there. It's called limited resources.

The problem with the system of shareholders and top-down management of companies is the gap between rich and poor. Those at the top pay themselves more money, not because the employees agree they've earned what they're paid, but because they are in power. Now this wouldn't be such a problem if one person being rich doesn't hurt anybody else.

This isnt an artistocratic society. The majority of shareholders out there didnt earn that from some family legacy or monarch. They had to have gotten that money from somewhere. The Marxist tries to make it out like the liberal economy is like a pie and that people are tying to get the biggest slice to leave crumbs for the others. But what the liberal economy does over all other systems is create a bigger pie. It is the only system that speaks of the creation of wealth.

Name me a Marxist book that talks about the creation of wealth rather than the redristibution.

But the fact is, the fact that the wealthy exist does hurt everyone else. They cause a greater percentage of the productive output of the economy to be directed to serve their interests, becoming ever greater parasites on the general population the wealthier they get, leaving less and less resources available to serve everyone else.

Being wealthy in a liberal economy creates more wealth and more jobs. They're not going to horde all of thier cash in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge off of Duck Tales. They are going to spend it on something else which means more production, more jobs and more investments. The poor need the wealthy as much as the rich need the poor. This system has created something that no other system has created for in the past: a middle class.

Liberalism is an economic science. Socialism is rhetorical psuedo-science that appeals to the guilty side in all of us. It is a system nearly all based on politics with capitalism as its supplement.

cyu

7th March 2006, 18:43

The only option they have is to sell their labor or if the rich feel like being charitable. Or the third option if thier government feels like being a bit more liberal and offer to have them educated to open thier job market.

Haha, so the people don't have the option to change their government? Again, I have no problem with markets. I just believe employees should have the right to assume democratic control of their companies. That doesn't affect the market structure at all, besides who is in control of the companies and who determines how much everyone is paid.

Being wealthy in a liberal economy creates more wealth and more jobs. They're not going to horde all of thier cash in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge off of Duck Tales. They are going to spend it on something else which means more production, more jobs and more investments.

You clearly haven't been reading what I've written, so I'll try to explain it again, real slow like. When the wealthy spend money buying a giant mansion or giant statue or velvet covered golf-course or whatever, yes, indeed they are creating jobs, but what are the jobs doing? There are a limited number of people. The money people spend determines what those people do with their labor. If you have a thousand people doing some project for one wealthy capitalist and only a hundred people left growing food and providing health care for everyone, then the amount of food and health care available becomes much less than if there weren't the wealthy capitalist there hiring away all the labor. Thus, there would be much less scarcity in a market economy in which everyone had relatively equal amounts of spending power.

JudeObscure84

7th March 2006, 21:28

Haha, so the people don't have the option to change their government?
They can change the government all they want. They will never change the market.

Again, I have no problem with markets
Yes you do.

I just believe employees should have the right to assume democratic control of their companies. That doesn't affect the market structure at all, besides who is in control of the companies and who determines how much everyone is paid.
They only have a say in their fair share of the project; labour. Why do you people give so much credense to the worker? You just presuppose that the investor did no work and got that money from stealing it from the workers.

You clearly haven't been reading what I've written, so I'll try to explain it again, real slow like. When the wealthy spend money buying a giant mansion or giant statue or velvet covered golf-course or whatever, yes, indeed they are creating jobs, but what are the jobs doing? There are a limited number of people. The money people spend determines what those people do with their labor. If you have a thousand people doing some project for one wealthy capitalist and only a hundred people left growing food and providing health care for everyone, then the amount of food and health care available becomes much less than if there weren't the wealthy capitalist there hiring away all the labor. Thus, there would be much less scarcity in a market economy in which everyone had relatively equal amounts of spending power.

Physicians and surgeons held about 567,000 jobs in 2004

That makes up 0.00189% of the population.

Agricultural workers held about 834,000 jobs in 2004.

That makes up 0.00278% of the population.

In your country of less than 2000 people, half of them would be doing jobs that are only required of less than 1% of population.

cyu

7th March 2006, 22:10

In your country of less than 2000 people, half of them would be doing jobs that are only required of less than 1% of population.

That, of course, was just an example to illustrate a point, which you have not addressed. What do you say to the fact that the wealthy cause a disproportionate amount of the productive effort of an economy to be geared toward them, causing a drain on what is available to be produced for everyone else?

If only 1% of the population were needed to keep everyone healthy and fed, why are so many people not healthy and fed? It's simply an indication of the failure of capitalist economics.

They only have a say in their fair share of the project; labour. Why do you people give so much credense to the worker? You just presuppose that the investor did no work and got that money from stealing it from the workers.

Why would investors be needed at all if investment decisions can be done democratically? The result would be that you wouldn't have a wealthy few who cause a drain on the economy because of their enormous spending power - thus a greater good for a greater number of people. Investment decisions done by the many would also be much more likely to benefit a greater number of people than decisions made by a few.

If the poor have no money to pay for the goods of a proposed company, then the company will fail. In a capitalist economy, it makes more sense to start a company that serves people who actually have money - thus the general population is not served. As the gap between rich and poor widens, there will be more and more effort being put into serving only the wealthy.

The company I work for, for example, makes the vast majority of its money from making software for corporations and not consumers, because corporations have much more money to spend then the average person. Our company also builds beautiful office buildings, has perfectly manicured lawns, etc etc. It's a lot of human effort that could've been used to improve the lives of the general population instead, but isn't, because of the concentration of wealth.

Sabocat

7th March 2006, 22:36

Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation (example: all the cars driving around with huge flags and support the troops stickers; current hyper nationalism)

and often race above the individual
(example: extreme anti immigrant sentiment currently re: the Minutemen militia)

and that stands for a centralized autocratic government (example: Patriot act allowing cosolidation of executive power, creation of a "national police force") headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation,

and forcible suppression of opposition (Examples: too many to recount here, but the "Free Speech Zones" at the National political conventions would be a good start.)

JudeObscure84

7th March 2006, 23:27

That, of course, was just an example to illustrate a point, which you have not addressed. What do you say to the fact that the wealthy cause a disproportionate amount of the productive effort of an economy to be geared toward them, causing a drain on what is available to be produced for everyone else?

Our economy doesn't need almost half of the population working as doctors or farmers, as you're trying to suggest in your example.

If only 1% of the population were needed to keep everyone healthy and fed, why are so many people not healthy and fed? It's simply an indication of the failure of capitalist economics.

Failure? The capitalist system was never meant to feed everyone but to feed the most people with the scarcity of resources. Sell your labour get some food.You cannot use that as a factor to better your argument.

You're speaking to me as if its the 1920's and these matters havent been resolved. Most the writers you read are outdated and never saw the changing face of capitalism. Thanks to machines, more people aren't needed for agriculture. A farmer can farm an entire field several hundred acres in size all by himself thanks to a tractor with the right sowing and harvesting equipment on it. If anything, a hundred people growing food for a thousand is too many, and would produce more than what's needed, driving prices down.
You fail to take productivity into account.

Why would investors be needed at all if investment decisions can be done democratically? The result would be that you wouldn't have a wealthy few who cause a drain on the economy because of their enormous spending power - thus a greater good for a greater number of people. Investment decisions done by the many would also be much more likely to benefit a greater number of people than decisions made by a few.

I'm not following much of what you are advocating? Is it similar to a syndicalist philosophy? So, if the state isn't going to own income-producing property, and neither are private hands, the means of production will somehow be collectively owned by the workers themselves? Is this right. Please correct me if I am wrong.
So basically you are saying that ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold is wrong but a collective control of the company is democratic? Sounds like newspeak for anti-individualism. So after all the risks and liabilities I would love to see how many workers loved the idea of collevti

If the poor have no money to pay for the goods of a proposed company, then the company will fail. In a capitalist economy, it makes more sense to start a company that serves people who actually have money - thus the general population is not served. As the gap between rich and poor widens, there will be more and more effort being put into serving only the wealthy.

However, that factory was only there in the first place because some greedy capitalist thought he could make a profit selling widgets that someone could afford, and he invested capital he derived from prior savings. How about starting new businesses? How many workers have the capital to contribute? How many would risk that capital even if they had it, on a business "run democratically by the workers"?
Most companies in a liberal economy in turn invest in products that are affordable to the middle and lower classes.

The company I work for, for example, makes the vast majority of its money from making software for corporations and not consumers, because corporations have much more money to spend then the average person. Our company also builds beautiful office buildings, has perfectly manicured lawns, etc etc. It's a lot of human effort that could've been used to improve the lives of the general population instead, but isn't, because of the concentration of wealth.

You act as if your company is the only one. There are dozens of companies like yours that get thier starts from selling to big firms. The other way around is also possible as big firms sell to the small business and help them flourish too.

LoneRed

7th March 2006, 23:49

racism isnt a principle of fascism, only of a type of fascism, i.e. Nazism

cyu

8th March 2006, 02:17

The capitalist system was never meant to feed everyone but to feed the most people with the scarcity of resources.

The point is that a large gap between rich and poor makes resources even more scarce. Let's say you have x amount of land to devote to either farming or golf courses and y amount of people who could either be farmers or caddies. If there exists an exceedingly rich man who can buy up the vast majority of the land and hire away the vast majority of the people to be his caddies (or shine his shoes, drive his cars, etc) then there will be much less land and labor left to feed everyone. It's simple economics. (Though you may be too stupid to understand it.)

The resources to feed and house everyone would not be so scarce if the rich man did not exist. Thus a system without the exceedingly wealthy would be a greater benefit to a greater number of people.

So basically you are saying that ownership in the form of individual shares that can be sold is wrong but a collective control of the company is democratic?

If a farmer is using land to grow food, then he owns it. If a bunch of employees are using a company building to write software, then they own that. If more than one person is using something to produce something, then they control it democratically. Selling shares of the company to someone who isn't using the equipment or buildings of the company would be useless, because whoever is using it could just ignore the commands of the new "owner" of the shares. Basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism.

How about starting new businesses? How many workers have the capital to contribute? How many would risk that capital even if they had it, on a business "run democratically by the workers"?

There would be no direct return on investment, so there would be no reason for anybody to invest their own money in new businesses. The means of production are owned by whoever is using it. If there are raw materials or equipment that nobody is using but could be used, then the people living in that area decide democratically how to "invest" it, though there's no return on the investment in terms of profit, there is only a "return" on the investment in terms of new products made from the new company going into the market.

Sabocat

11th March 2006, 14:02

From the League Principles:

Put simply, fascism is a political movement of the petty bourgeoisie. It is the reaction of the petty bourgeoisie to both their ruin at the hands of capitalism (due to that system’s collapse) and their impending entry into the ranks of the proletariat (generally as a result of a victorious proletarian revolution). There are many political forms taken by a fascist movement, contingent on the material conditions within which the latter emerges. Historically, when fascism gains state power, they immediately fuse with and accommodate the most conservative and backward elements of the capitalist state machinery. Fascism in power takes the form of a police state, domestically, and an imperialist empire, internationally.
Fascism represents at once the decay of capitalist class society and the latter’s organic direction. That is, the totalitarian and barbaric methods of fascism are representative of the extent to which the bourgeoisie is willing or able to sacrifice all other classes for its survival. However, the bourgeoisie does not, and will never, reach a full consensus on the use of fascism, though it may seem as though such a consensus exists at times. Communists view fascism and the fascist movement as the shock troopers of bourgeois reaction and counterrevolution against proletarian action and the workers’ republic.