Fascism vs Socialism?

[Agnapostate]

That's not a bad reference. The Yugoslav model was effectively market socialist and worker-managed in nature, though the excessive influence of the Communist Party was still counterproductive.

 

[Diuretic]

That's not a bad reference. The Yugoslav model was effectively market socialist and worker-managed in nature, though the excessive influence of the Communist Party was still counterproductive.

True enough. I admit I only spent a week in Yugoslavia back in the early 1980s but I was surprised - naievely I know - to see so many private businesses operating and the reasonably high standard of living. In contrast to Czechoslovakia (the part I was in is now Slovakia) it was a much more pleasant place. Neither of them got near Hungary though, that was a real eye-opener back then.

 

[Contumacious]

That's social democracy, not socialism.

What is the difference?

Is the government involved in the economy in any way shape or form with either system?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Fucking ace.

Here is Exhibit A of someone who has been FUBR by 12 years of government education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ringel05]

Here is one view, the debate will, however, rage on. Rosser the author of this paper even stated Naziism, to him, was more akin to "Controlled Capitalism" then actual socialism.


The Road To Serfdom and the world economy: 60 years later

J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.a

1. Introduction
Although far from being his most intellectually important, there is little doubt that Friedrich A. Hayek’s most influential book was his The Road to Serfdom (RTS), published in 1944 in the later stages of World War II. Although very heavily influenced by the war, especially in its emphasis on Hitler’s Germany as the model for the totalitarian socialist state, it looked forward to the postwar era in its forecasts and analysis.

 

[Agnapostate]

What is the difference?

Social democracy is a form of capitalism because the prevailing arrangement continues to be the private ownership of the means of production.

Is the government involved in the economy in any way shape or form with either system?

Because of the fact that the government is an integral agent of stabilization and growth in the capitalist economy, it will necessarily have an expansive role in the social democratic economy. The government's role is minimal or nonexistent in the socialist economy, however.

Fucking ace.

Here is Exhibit A of someone who has been FUBR by 12 years of government education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try not to be an idiot.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

If the economy is regulated or controlled by the government in any way shape or form you have fascism.

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "

Benito Mussolini

 

[Agnapostate]

*facepalm*

Even I as an anarchist can recognize the utter stupidity of that comment.

 

[Ringel05]

The government's role is minimal or nonexistent in the socialist economy, however.

Which type of socialist economies are you refering to? Neosocialism, Classical Socialism, Modern Socialism, Liberal Socialism?

 

[Agnapostate]

The republican market socialist and decentralized participatory planned socialist economies that effectively represent the only way forward for socialism. I myself advocate a radical form of the latter variant, anarchist communism.

 

[Ringel05]

The republican market socialist and decentralized participatory planned socialist economies that effectively represent the only way forward for socialism. I myself advocate a radical form of the latter variant, anarchist communism.

You still didn't really answer the question, that's ok. I kinda fiqued from your name you were an Anarchist Communist. You do know however that proponents of these political/economic systems generally lack even the slightest understanding of human nature and those that do, understand the need to eliminate all objections to these systems.

 

[Agnapostate]

You still didn't really answer the question, that's ok. I kinda fiqued from your name you were an Anarchist Communist. You do know however that proponents of these political/economic systems generally lack even the slightest understanding of human nature and those that do, understand the need to eliminate all objections to these systems.

Your question wasn't that descriptive. Classical socialism was largely Marxist in nature but still maintained focus on the collective ownership of the means of production. I didn't realize that my name indicated anarchist communism, but the "human nature" objection is almost never sufficiently precise, in my experience. I usually find anti-socialists under the mistaken impression that socialism involves an elimination of incentives or something of that nature.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

OK, you are pro-pedophilia. No, you are not part of the false philosophy of the Aesthetes who are beyond manmade law. Your kind has the same ending, sharing a cell with Bubba, who is going to teach you about man love.

This Agnapostate is the type of freak that Andrew Vachss writes about. The Official Website of Andrew Vachss : The Zero 5.0laf. If you don't know about 'Burke' and the agnapostates of the world, read and be amazed.

 

[Ringel05]

You still didn't really answer the question, that's ok. I kinda fiqued from your name you were an Anarchist Communist. You do know however that proponents of these political/economic systems generally lack even the slightest understanding of human nature and those that do, understand the need to eliminate all objections to these systems.

Your question wasn't that descriptive. Classical socialism was largely Marxist in nature but still maintained focus on the collective ownership of the means of production. I didn't realize that my name indicated anarchist communism, but the "human nature" objection is almost never sufficiently precise, in my experience. I usually find anti-socialists under the mistaken impression that socialism involves an elimination of incentives or something of that nature.

Interesting, in my experience it's almost everything. Specific types of socialism and incentives combined with human nature do not go hand in hand, as has been proven over and over. People are more often motivated by self, not collectivism.
As for you name it was a good guess based on your postings (as I really should have stated).

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

If the economy is regulated or controlled by the government in any way shape or form you have fascism.

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "

Benito Mussolini

You are baying at the moon, but at least you outed yourself. OK, post on, maestro, and I will ignore you.

 

[Valerie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA]YouTube - Ronald Reagan - Medicare Myth Of Dictatorship[/ame]

 

[manifold]

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.

That's just it, none of the examples given have lasted. That should be a red flag right there. And it's never been implemented successfully on a truly large scale.

 

[Agnapostate]

OK, you are pro-pedophilia. No, you are not part of the false philosophy of the Aesthetes who are beyond manmade law. Your kind has the same ending, sharing a cell with Bubba, who is going to teach you about man love.

This Agnapostate is the type of freak that Andrew Vachss writes about. The Official Website of Andrew Vachss : The Zero 5.0laf. If you don't about 'Burke' and the agnapostates of the world, read and be amazed.

Vachss? Is he the one who wrote the piss-poor little erotic crime novels or whatever the fuck they were?

I'd suggest picking up a different routine, newbie. If you think you can waltz in here repeating stupid bullshit without knowing what you're fucking talking about, you'd better set down that rusty pipe and think about things a bit more clearheaded. Now, if you actually want to know what I advocate, I'd generally agree with the educator John Holt's (Escape From Childhood, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1974) proposal, in which he declared:

I propose...that the rights, privileges, duties, responsiblities of adult citizens be made available to any young person, of whatever age, who wants to make use of them. These would include, among others:

1. The right to equal treatment at the hands of the law-i.e., the right, in any situation, to be treated no worse than an adult would be.

2. The right to vote, and take full part in political affairs.

3. The right to be legally responsible for one's life and acts.

4. The right to work, for money.

5. The right to privacy.

6. The right to financial independence and responsibility-i.e., the right to own, buy, and sell property, to borrow money, establish credit, sign contracts, etc.

7. The right to direct and manage one's own education.

8. The right to travel, to live away from home, to choose or make one's own home.

9. The right to receive from the state whatever minimum income it may guarantee to adult citizens.

10. The right to make and enter into, on a basis of mutual consent, quasi-familial relationships outside one's immediate family-i.e., the right to seek and choose guardians other than one's own parents and to be legally dependent on them.

11. The right to do, in general, what any adult may legally do.

But if you're going to babble on with the same retarded lies from this point forward, then I'll ensure that your interactions with me are unpleasant and something you'll miserably regret starting, little grasshopper.

Interesting, in my experience it's almost everything. Specific types of socialism and incentives combined with human nature do not go hand in hand, as has been proven over and over. People are more often motivated by self, not collectivism.

There is a common fallacy that socialists believe that persons will be inclined to labor "for the good of the collective" rather than for their own self-interest. But I've never heard any major socialist theorist describe any such sentiment, and socialism is ultimately more meritocratic than capitalism because it's based on remuneration for personal labor contribution (measured through effort or some other standard), rather than the labor and capital contribution measurements of capitalism, which permits those who have hoarded capital to be slovenly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The common fallacy is that I am going to tolerate your long-winded crap about screwing children.

You advocate sex with children? See if you answer it in one sentence.

 

[Agnapostate]

That's just it, none of the examples given have lasted. That should be a red flag right there.

That would be the case if a spontaneous collapse caused by internal deficiencies had occurred. But instead, a coercive destruction caused by overwhelming military force from the fascists combined with Stalinist sabotage undermined the aforementioned Spanish Revolution, for example.

And it's never been implemented successfully on a truly large scale.

40% of the population of Spain and 60% of the land in Republican territory isn't a "large scale"?