Fascism vs Socialism?

[Agnapostate]

Well, as long as you continue to inaccurately refer to state capitalism, you won't notice.

 

[Contumacious]

Fascism is a form of socialism.

That's utterly wrong.

HUH?


A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

Ayn Rand

 

[manifold]

Seriously Agna,

You've not demonstrated one iota how life for the average citizen would be any different under either. And you can't... because there is no difference.

 

[Agnapostate]

HUH?


A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

Ayn Rand

Who cares what Rant thinks? She was herself an authoritarian who supported the hierarchical conditions of the capitalist labor market; she's nothing close to a libertarian, which is why she wisely disavowed the label.

Thanks for ignoring the point, incidentally; I see we have a new pseudo-libertarian here.

Seriously Agna,

You've not demonstrated one iota how life for the average citizen would be any different under either. And you can't... because there is no difference.

You aren't asking about socialism; you're asking about Leninism. And I'll gladly say that the hierarchical and authoritarian statist conditions of fascism and Leninism are similar, though there are substantial economic differences between them. It's simply your reference to "socialism" that's not correct.

 

[pal_of_poor]

"Workers fare better under socialism".

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Show me where they fare better, dumbass. I'm dying to know.

Most of Europe is more socialistic than we are, even Australia shows more concern for its workers.

Oh, I get it, you listen to the God Bless America, is all powerful, wonderful in every way, we are so great, and everybody sucks channel, FAUX Network. I see, that makes sense now.

I recently read a story of a hotel maid in Australia, making $18 an hour. She had a child, was able to have child care, and attend school at night to better herself.

But to be honest, my statement really should have said, Socialism is better than Fascism.

Fascism being corporatism, and corporations wanting the cheapest labor as possible, doesn't that doom the poor workers to a kind of suck-ism? Seems to me it would.

Here, we're all being slammed up against the wall of competition with nearly primitive societies, one we can't win. And they are finding ways to bring in more skilled labor, so even in jobs where you think you are secure, they are finding ways to drive your salary down too.

Hey, maybe you too will be the object of their Fascist ways, and will enjoy a sizeable reduction in salary, or perhaps even better, you'll get one of those great pink-slips that so many have been handed out, who love the free-trade-ism, we've been practicing. I certainly wish you the rewards of the "savage-capitalism" you seem to want to wallow in.

 

[Agnapostate]

That's social democracy, not socialism.

 

[manifold]

Agna,

Leninism IS socialism in action. It's because you fail to see this that you... fail.

 

[Agnapostate]

Agna,

Leninism IS socialism in action. It's because you fail to see this that you... fail.

Seriously, giant fucking facepalm at all of you. Leninism has no tradition of socialism to draw upon because centralized state control is the direct opposite of public control.

 

[manifold]

Agna,

Leninism IS socialism in action. It's because you fail to see this that you... fail.

Seriously, giant fucking facepalm at all of you. Leninism has no tradition of socialism to draw upon because centralized state control is the direct opposite of public control.

The fact that you don't realize it's the exact same thing is why you are looked upon as a complete retard.

Well that and the whole wanting to legalize pedophilia thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No discussion necessary. You're right. A socialist regime will end up as a fascist one.

Fascism is a form of socialism.

In a fascistic regime the means of production are privately owned but under government control through rules, regulations and licenses, ie US.

Socialism - all the means of production are owned by the state.

Capitalism all the means of production are privately owned and the government is not interfering with the same in any way fashion or form.

.

Yep, Denmark is fascist. Contumacious, your error is deliberate, which makes it worse. You conflate government regulation with fascism. Go back to Start and begin again, this time honestly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agna,

Leninism IS socialism in action. It's because you fail to see this that you... fail.

Seriously, giant fucking facepalm at all of you. Leninism has no tradition of socialism to draw upon because centralized state control is the direct opposite of public control.

The fact that you don't realize it's the exact same thing is why you are looked upon as a complete retard.

Well that and the whole wanting to legalize pedophilia thing.

What? Is that true? Then hunt him down and turn his name and address into local law enforcement. Pedophilia? Are you serious?

 

[Agnapostate]

The fact that you don't realize it's the exact same thing is why you are looked upon as a complete retard.

Uh...no, when something conflicts with several decades of prior formation of ideology and is condemned as anti-socialist at its origin for powerful and compelling reasons...the idiots who continue to refer to it as "socialist" because that was the self-description offered are akin to those who would refer to the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic as democratic because of its name.

Well that and the whole wanting to legalize pedophilia thing.

Well, considering that pedophilia's, well...not illegal, you're kind of in another rut there too, champ.

 

[Agnapostate]

What? Is that true?

No. I advocate the abolition of age restrictions and replacement of them with competency tests or some similar standard, since age is an arbitrary and imprecise means of determining maturity. Some posters here placed an inordinate amount of focus on the age of sexual consent, which some use as a basis for discrediting every other aspect of the idea.

Then hunt him down and turn his name and address into local law enforcement. Pedophilia? Are you serious?

Uh...not to rain on your parade, but aside from the fact that "pedophilia" merely involves attraction without any necessary action, if I was legitimately pro-pedophile and advocated the legalization of sexual contact with children, I'd have a First Amendment right to do so anyway, just as Nazis and anyone else has the right to advocate a second Holocaust if they wish.

 

[manifold]

Ok Agna,

How exactly are you going to implement public control in a practical manner that doesn't evolve into centralized state control?

 

[Agnapostate]

Ok Agna,

How exactly are you going to implement public control in a practical manner that doesn't evolve into centralized state control?

I just answered this question. The two remaining approaches would be either republican market socialism, which preserves markets as the primary means of resource allocation and diminishes the role of the state, and decentralized participatory planning, which relies on horizontal federations of collectives and communes to engage in democratic management of the economy. I personally favor the latter approach.

 

[manifold]

Ok Agna,

How exactly are you going to implement public control in a practical manner that doesn't evolve into centralized state control?

I just answered this question. The two remaining approaches would be either republican market socialism, which preserves markets as the primary means of resource allocation and diminishes the role of the state, and decentralized participatory planning, which relies on horizontal federations of collectives and communes to engage in democratic management of the economy. I personally favor the latter approach.

I'm pretty sure I don't have any idea how that is supposed to work. But I am absolutely sure that you don't.

 

[Contumacious]

I see we have a new pseudo-libertarian here.
.

I see , so your technique is to become incoherent when confronted with the facts.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm pretty sure I don't have any idea how that is supposed to work. But I am absolutely sure that you don't.

Did your reading spectacles fall between the couch cushions? I seem to recall having just described a successful implementation of the latter example. Or have you already forgotten about the Spanish Revolution?

Also consider this review of participatory economics, created by political theorist Michael Albert and political economist Robin Hahnel.

This is a model designed to yield Pareto optimal allocation through decentralized planning. It is an effort to overcome the commodity fetishism of markets, market-bias towards private goods at the expense of public goods, externalities, and market failures of all kinds. Additionally, their model attempts to go beyond the hierarchical decision-making inherent in central planning. It is in many respects a well thought-through effort to go beyond markets without succumbing to the domination of central planning.

The model relies on the existence of "consumer councils" organized geographically by neighborhood, municipality, state, and federal jurisdictions. They start out small and local, yet become aggregated until their plans combine into a national system. The "consumer councils" are assumed to be self-interested with each member assumed to act in her/his own individual interest. They are "rational maximizers" as is assumed in neoclassicism. The effective "check" on each unit is the fact that they exist within a network of other local consumer councils, who also want to maximize self-interest. Also, the self-interest of consumer councils is checked by the rational maximizing behavior of "worker councils" in production. "Worker councils" likewise seek to achieve the best working conditions and most income under conditions that are not competitive but that are collectively monitored by other competing workers' councils. The democratically run worker councils are grouped by industry and proceed from the shopfloor upwards to the federal level. Plans are drawn through an iterative process in which consumer councils articulate what they want to purchase and worker councils articulate what they want to produce. Each person, as both consumer and producer, gets to vote according to the extent to which she/he is affected by the decision.

Parecon is effectively a form of libertarian collectivism.

 

[Agnapostate]

I see , so your technique is to become incoherent when confronted with the facts.

Facts? You're the one who lacked the ability to respond to even a kernel of my post.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Socialism says the means of production is controlled by ALL of society.
There can be no larger group than that!!!

In theory it does.

But in reality that isn't practical. And all attempts to actually practice socialism on any meaningful scale have ended up with control in the hands of very few.

I think the former Yugoslav model was effective. It's a shame it didn't last, it might have been a pointer to others.