Fascism vs Socialism?

[Ringel05]

OK Vernon, we are making some progress here so don't fuck it up.


So do we agree now that under Capitalism the gubmint does not control credit, the currency, banking ......etc, it controls NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

Ernest, I never claimed it didn't, it a purely theoretical model.
But if all you are interested in is lecturing someone concerning your interpretations of applications then be sanctimonious with someone else, I'm not interested. If you desire a rational discussion between informed adults then please continue in a non derisive vein.

I am not being sanctimonious, please realize that some folks can't handle the truth.

"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

You are discussing eventualities which I totally agree with, I am addressing current systems which have yet to achieve that status.
And yes, you were being sanctimonious, you were talking down to me, not discussing the issue.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...we're now incorrectly describing fascism as "socialist" in nature?

This comment by Agna got me thinking.

Certainly I can see how fascism and socialism differ in theory. In fact theoretically, they differ quite significantly. However, in practice it seems they end up looking very much alike: All power (and control of resources and means of production) in the hands of a very few. Far fewer even than with capitalism.

Discuss.

Oh my... did you start a thread which can only encourage the aggrevated prostate to drone on with her tedious academic rationalizations of the pendatic minutia, wherein she harps on incessantly about inane distinctions of the irrelevant variety; each hoping against all reason to excuse the consistant failure of every facet, ever advanced by the forces of Left-think? To wit: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/85850-fascism-vs-socialism.html#post1450292

Thus the question: WHY?

Fascism and socialism differ by one and only one facet...

Fascism is National Socialism, Socialism is international... Meaning that Fascism expects that socialist policy will be framed by and fall within the scope of the given culture and heritage of the nation in which they're being applied; and bolsters loyalty and patriotism to the State which is said to defend that culture.

Socialism of the international variety rejects the principle of national sovereignty and thus the respective heritage of such cultures; and requires that all loyalties be laid at the feet of 'the people', which is the ethereal object which is represented by and thus rests in the imbodiment of "The State."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...we're now incorrectly describing fascism as "socialist" in nature?

This comment by Agna got me thinking.

Certainly I can see how fascism and socialism differ in theory. In fact theoretically, they differ quite significantly. However, in practice it seems they end up looking very much alike: All power (and control of resources and means of production) in the hands of a very few. Far fewer even than with capitalism.

Discuss.

I can't get over how you guys just can't seem to understand the difference between economic systems, and systems of government. There are many Social "Democracies" in the world, and most have the healthiest, most educated, competitive, and happy people in the world. And they pay a bit more in taxes, and their incomes are yes, more equal, which explains the rest of this paragraph.

Name them... and substantiate your assertions with regard to 'health, education, competitivness, and happiness...'

When you fail to do so, through your citation, AT BEST of some UN 'study'... which subjectively comes to such conclusions, absent objective standards by which such conclusions would otherwise be measured... will be your default concession that you're argument amounts to little more than absurb Leftist pabulum.

 

[Diuretic]

That would, at the very least, would encompass a plethera of comparative examples based on model to multiple current modern forms, a good 10 page synopsis. (See bold, ital, underline).
correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you are talking about are residuals, i.e. you do the work once and continue to get paid for it as in being compensated for a copywrite you own either material or idea based.

No, not residuals, I was referring to the idea that profit is derived from surplus value of labour.

No, Surplus Value is a Marxist concept/description of capitalism.

It is but Marx borrowed it from Ricardo I think, or Malthus. I dunno, one of them anyway it's pre-Marx.

 

[Ringel05]

No, not residuals, I was referring to the idea that profit is derived from surplus value of labour.

No, Surplus Value is a Marxist concept/description of capitalism.

It is but Marx borrowed it from Ricardo I think, or Malthus. I dunno, one of them anyway it's pre-Marx.

I have no idea if it was borrowed, my knowledge of the subject is not that inclusive. I'll have to take you on your word. All I know is Marx rightly or wrongly applied this concept to capitalism.

 

[Diuretic]

No, Surplus Value is a Marxist concept/description of capitalism.

It is but Marx borrowed it from Ricardo I think, or Malthus. I dunno, one of them anyway it's pre-Marx.

I have no idea if it was borrowed, my knowledge of the subject is not that inclusive. I'll have to take you on your word. All I know is Marx rightly or wrongly applied this concept to capitalism.

He did indeed apply it. I think it might have been central to this thesis. Having said that, I've also read some critiques of his interpretation. Anyway it appears it's important to the operation of capitalism.

 

[Ringel05]

It is but Marx borrowed it from Ricardo I think, or Malthus. I dunno, one of them anyway it's pre-Marx.

I have no idea if it was borrowed, my knowledge of the subject is not that inclusive. I'll have to take you on your word. All I know is Marx rightly or wrongly applied this concept to capitalism.

He did indeed apply it. I think it might have been central to this thesis. Having said that, I've also read some critiques of his interpretation. Anyway it appears it's important to the operation of capitalism.

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

 

[Diuretic]

I have no idea if it was borrowed, my knowledge of the subject is not that inclusive. I'll have to take you on your word. All I know is Marx rightly or wrongly applied this concept to capitalism.

He did indeed apply it. I think it might have been central to this thesis. Having said that, I've also read some critiques of his interpretation. Anyway it appears it's important to the operation of capitalism.

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin http://petermartin.blogspot.com/ - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

 

[amrchaos]

He did indeed apply it. I think it might have been central to this thesis. Having said that, I've also read some critiques of his interpretation. Anyway it appears it's important to the operation of capitalism.

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin Peter Martin - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

The only thing you need to understand about economics is the following:

All economists are Con-Artists!

 

[PeterS]

I guess you've never heard of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is not a feature of Capitalism - it is a privilege in a fascist government.

It is a privilege of every government-fascist or not. Without eminent domain government has no power define boundaries, hold territory, nor defend property. It is a principle recognized in both common and natural law and other than war is the only mechanism by which a society can form a nation.

Also, what about force that isn't physical? Your definition is very vague.

Elaborate , please.

Berny Madoff, I doubt he could have been physical if he had wanted to. It would seem that in your quest to limit government you have also limited yourself...

The are two kinds of monopolies.

Coercive monopolies are only possible in fascistic economy - they are mandated and authorized by the state;

Non-coercive monopoly - the only way a business can monopolize a market non coercively is by producing a super product or service at a reasonable price.

How do you know it is a superior product, or set of products, when those are the only products available due to the monopoly. Aside from the fact your definition is incorrect in both cases freemarket capitalism is at an end. That was my point.

 

[PeterS]

I see, so relying upon the Orwellian dictionary that you are using Blacks in the south were not slaves , they were merely experiencing "controlled freedom."


.

What a disingenuous comparison!

Of course it was , so don't ever use the term "controlled Capitalism" - once the government interferes with the economy in any way shape or form you have STATISM , in the case of Germany and Italy in the early 1940's , of the FASCIST variety.

Capitalism depends on the FREE MARKET, no the semi-free, not the semi-controlled, not the compassionate free market, ...........ad nauseam.

And so you have statism? Since, by your definition, freemarket capitalism has never existed and ours is the largest economy why should we care? Why should we endeavor for something that never existed when what we have seems to be working fine?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

He did indeed apply it. I think it might have been central to this thesis. Having said that, I've also read some critiques of his interpretation. Anyway it appears it's important to the operation of capitalism.

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin Peter Martin - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

"Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. ..."

ROFLMNAO... Numbers my ass... this isn't an issue of math.. its PRINCIPLE... which, sadly, is a concept that you've demonstrated you've no means to comprehend either...

Which leaves one to question just what the hell it is you ARE capable of understanding...

 

[L.K.Eder]

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin Peter Martin - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

"Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. ..."

ROFLMNAO... Numbers my ass... this isn't an issue of math.. its PRINCIPLE... which, sadly, is a concept that you've demonstrated you've no means to comprehend either...

Which leaves one to question just what the hell it is you ARE capable of understanding...

he seems to understand his limitations.

something you clearly can't.

 

[paperview]

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin Peter Martin - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

"Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. ..."

ROFLMNAO... Numbers my ass... this isn't an issue of math.. its PRINCIPLE... which, sadly, is a concept that you've demonstrated you've no means to comprehend either...

Which leaves one to question just what the hell it is you ARE capable of understanding...

Is this how you inflate your insecure little ego?

By pompously bullying someone who sincerely admits to a lack of understanding on a subject?

What a small way to make yourself feel big.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius lacks a basic capacity for sympathy, the foundation for any fascist, such as him/herself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservatives in my life time have supported more authoritarian regimes than fascist ones. Though most of the fascist regimes I can recall were not socialistic, I do not think liberals in my life time have ever supported either.

Progressives are not liberals and when the old USSR was revealed to be authoritarian, the liberals who initially supported it backed off. Contrast that with what conservatives do when confronted with the harshness of bad regimes they've backed.


need I list regimes or are most here educated enough on recent history?

 

[Contumacious]

I guess you've never heard of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is not a feature of Capitalism - it is a privilege in a fascist government.

It is a privilege of every government-fascist or not. Without eminent domain government has no power define boundaries, hold territory, nor defend property. It is a principle recognized in both common and natural law and other than war is the only mechanism by which a society can form a nation.

You must not own any property - only a retard would allow a bureaucrat to sell his property for what the bureaucrats think is reasonable.

Elaborate , please.

Berny Madoff, I doubt he could have been physical if he had wanted to. It would seem that in your quest to limit government you have also limited yourself...

Caveat emptor.

Do you know how many government agencies were supposed to prevent Madoff for perpetrating a fraud - especially the SEC. But typical inefficient bureaucracy it fucked up royally.

The are two kinds of monopolies.

Coercive monopolies are only possible in fascistic economy - they are mandated and authorized by the state;

Non-coercive monopoly - the only way a business can monopolize a market non coercively is by producing a super product or service at a reasonable price.

How do you know it is a superior product, or set of products, when those are the only products available due to the monopoly.

People select a particular product according to what they think is best - they vote with their money.

Aside from the fact your definition is incorrect in both cases freemarket capitalism is at an end. That was my point.

A Capitalist government has no authority to authorize coercive monopolies.

 

[Ringel05]

He did indeed apply it. I think it might have been central to this thesis. Having said that, I've also read some critiques of his interpretation. Anyway it appears it's important to the operation of capitalism.

Like I said, my in depth knowledge of economics is limited. My primary interests are History, Sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and international relations. My knowledge of economics was gained to help me in applications to all the above. Economics, in general, is a common thread to aide in understanding human studies, in my humble opinion.

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin Peter Martin - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

When you have time you might want to take a course on socio-economic systems, maybe online, not numbers as much as theoretical models and current (mostly hybrid) systems. By the way I though you might be from down under when you were writing about a "mate" in Oregon. Although it could have indicated British but I'm not sure that word is used there as much any more.

 

[Contumacious]

What a disingenuous comparison!

Of course it was , so don't ever use the term "controlled Capitalism" - once the government interferes with the economy in any way shape or form you have STATISM , in the case of Germany and Italy in the early 1940's , of the FASCIST variety.

Capitalism depends on the FREE MARKET, no the semi-free, not the semi-controlled, not the compassionate free market, ...........ad nauseam.

And so you have statism? Since, by your definition, freemarket capitalism has never existed and ours is the largest economy why should we care? Why should we endeavor for something that never existed when what we have seems to be working fine?

Really.

We have had two major depressions , the government has declared bankruptcy twice - every time we have an economic upheaval the central government becomes stronger. So only some one with an enslaved mentality would assert that the present economic system is fine.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it was , so don't ever use the term "controlled Capitalism" - once the government interferes with the economy in any way shape or form you have STATISM , in the case of Germany and Italy in the early 1940's , of the FASCIST variety.

Capitalism depends on the FREE MARKET, no the semi-free, not the semi-controlled, not the compassionate free market, ...........ad nauseam.

And so you have statism? Since, by your definition, freemarket capitalism has never existed and ours is the largest economy why should we care? Why should we endeavor for something that never existed when what we have seems to be working fine?

Really.

We have had two major depressions , the government has declared bankruptcy twice - every time we have an economic upheaval the central government becomes stronger. So only some one with an enslaved mentality would assert that the present economic system is fine.

who caused these major depressions?