Fascism vs Socialism?

[Ringel05]

Wrong. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, pedophilia is a mental illness wherein a person experiences a prolonged and regular sexual attraction to prepubescent children. I don't give a fuck what you think and I don't give a fuck what you call me for providing the accurate definition, chump.

Since I've not dealt with and encountered the same persons that you have, I of course can't comment on that issue. But even moving beyond that, there are provisions in socialist economic theory that have long since addressed the incentive issue, and ensure that socialism is ultimately more meritocratic in nature than capitalism.


If you work in academia then you are in contact with these people on a daily basis.



Not provide you with public services if you won't accept labor assignments, and possibly reduce your public goods and services allowance if you shirk or don't work as productively as possible.

And if that doesn't work?

You can baa u ball baaa if you wish until all the sheep come home, but to try to pretend that as a first premis pedophilia is a sexual orentation rather than a crime against children is false. The pedophile does not treatment and a swanky clinic but some butt justice at the gray-bar hotel.

What?? I hope you were addressing Anapostate.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

How can I own the means of production if the same are subjected to government rules and regulations which can be enforced by violent means?!?!?!?!!?!?!?


"To make Americans feel good about what was happening, Roosevelt did his best to convince them that they weren’t really abandoning the economic system of their ancestors but instead actually saving it. In actuality the New Deal was rooted in the same philosophy and ideas on which Mussolini’s fascist system in Italy and Stalin’s and Hitler’s socialist systems in the Soviet Union and Germany were based. One of the best books to read along this line is Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany’s 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Shivelbush."

 

[garyd]

Mixed my ass. REad about Albert Speer(SP) sometime. The supposedly private sector either did exactly what the hell the Nazis told them to or the Nazis would cheerfully replace them and give them a room mate named Goldman if they got argumentative.

It was even more heavy handed in Italy. Fascism and naziism were different in fine as well. Mussolini claimed to be a socialist until his dying day, and was quite vehement about it and was roundly praised by the American left until the Spanish Civil War.

Again the primary difference between a socialist and a communist is that socialists are generally not idealists, having long since figured out that any government sufficiently large and intrusive enough to manage from each according to his means to each according to his needs isn't going anywhere, not under it's own power any way.

 

[Sidestreamer]

...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 think that's because in practice, a true, purely socialist society can't exist without some authority or head that manages it, and they end up claiming the lion's share for them/him/herself, and you're left with communism, which for all intents and purposes is usually a fascist government with a socialist economy... if that makes sense.

 

[8236]

Manifold really is quite clueless. Never backs up any statement. Not surprised at the 1000s of posts he/she has accumulated.

 

[8236]

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.

??I then nominate the US as a 'fascist' state. HOW much state intervention in the economy have we seen by the US government in recent times?? Or no, it must be a socialist state. The banks have been bailed out the car industry has been bailed. Or no the US must be a socio-fascist-capitalist-anarchy. I can think of instances when all these political processes have been in place in the US.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

A whole federation of states I'd call a large scale. And you have to look at why it failed in Yugoslavia, I think the reasons were more than economic.

 

[Diuretic]

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).

On human nature, history would disagree with you. Historically humans have had an awareness of the power of collective action over individual action. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors had eschewed collectivism. The one thing about human nature that I'm sure of is that humans are adaptable.

 

[manifold]

...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 think that's because in practice, a true, purely socialist society can't exist without some authority or head that manages it, and they end up claiming the lion's share for them/him/herself, and you're left with communism, which for all intents and purposes is usually a fascist government with a socialist economy... if that makes sense.

Exactly.

 

[manifold]

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.

A whole federation of states I'd call a large scale. And you have to look at why it failed in Yugoslavia, I think the reasons were more than economic.

The bottom line is it didn't last long enough to prove sustainability, regardless of the reasons for it's failure. Perhaps the premature failure wasn't economic, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have failed for economic reasons eventually.

 

[manifold]

Manifold really is quite clueless. Never backs up any statement. Not surprised at the 1000s of posts he/she has accumulated.

Thanks for reading my posts. Your patronage is greatly appreciated.

 

[Ravi]

...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 think that's because in practice, a true, purely socialist society can't exist without some authority or head that manages it, and they end up claiming the lion's share for them/him/herself, and you're left with communism, which for all intents and purposes is usually a fascist government with a socialist economy... if that makes sense.

Therefore a true socialist society would have means of electing leaders and holding them accountable...which is not a feature of fascist regimes.

 

[Ringel05]

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).

On human nature, history would disagree with you. Historically humans have had an awareness of the power of collective action over individual action. We wouldn't be here if our ancestors had eschewed collectivism. The one thing about human nature that I'm sure of is that humans are adaptable.

Yes, in limited applications (in scope) when collectivism satisfies the self motivation. You misinterpret the point I was making. I'm sure you're aware of the 80/20 rule. I was addressing the anarchist communist approach and other extreme socialist approaches (see above: "specific types of socialism") that stifle the 20%, the innovators and entrepreneurs. The main point being, what are your motivational factors, is it just material gain (like the 80%), or like me is it much more where material gain and money are secondary, tools to achieve something greater - economic freedom.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Obama presidency is offically over. The weariness of the past 8 years which gave us Obama should not be perceived as a desire to change the national landscape to mimmick France or worse, Guatemala. Ordinary Americans do not feel the need for America to embark on a foreign policy based on penance and a domestic policy of redistriubution. Team Obama got it all wrong.
As the news flows in... it gets worse... and blaming it on Bush ain't flying any more. Even the press is starting to get it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Team Obama has come face to face with something they have never encountered.. ACCOUNTABILITY.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Soggy has come to face to face with . . . itself! The screaming continues!!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Soggy has come to face to face with . . . itself! The screaming continues!!!!

Uh.. what?

 

[Ringel05]

Soggy has come to face to face with . . . itself! The screaming continues!!!!

Uh.. what?

Soggy,
Did you even bother reading the title of the thread before you posted or is you entire intent to be nothing more than be a partisan political hack, and a poor one at that.

 

[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

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

That is an excellent strategy for the intellectually challenged.


.

 

[manifold]

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 think that's because in practice, a true, purely socialist society can't exist without some authority or head that manages it, and they end up claiming the lion's share for them/him/herself, and you're left with communism, which for all intents and purposes is usually a fascist government with a socialist economy... if that makes sense.

Therefore a true socialist society would have means of electing leaders and holding them accountable...which is not a feature of fascist regimes.

That's actually a pretty good point... again in theory.

In reality it rarely works out that way unfortunately.