The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[Contumacious]

\
Remember, Mussolini rose from the radical press. He advocated for "fact checkers" in government to ensure "accuracy," much as the fascist democrats today demand. The democrats will also claim such a system is "freedom of the press."

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

As previously indicated in a fascist country , the bureaucrats micromanage the country.

The bureaucrats know that they can intervene in economic and social issues at anytime when THEY THEY THEY determine that is proper.

It is up to them to decide what degree of social and economic PRIVILEGES will be allowed.

That they have allowed us to certain certain PRIVILEGES is pure luck.


.


.


.

Wow. A larger font. And yet you still couldn't come even remotely close to the meaning of fascism. Fascism involves dictatorship...which we don't have. Belligerent nationalism...which we don't have. Violent suppression of the press and political opposition....which we don't have. State sanctioned racism....which we don't have. And stringent socioeconomic controls....which we don't have.

But other than failing to meet virtually every defining characteristic of fascism, yeah.....we're a spot on match.

Well dream on.

Read

John T. Flynn's classic work from 1944 on how wartime planning brought fascism to America. In some ways, this is the finest and most mature of all his works. It was written in wartime and his points were profoundly cutting. After all, the U.S. was supposedly fighting the total state abroad, but meanwhile at home was drafting people, controlling all prices and wages, rationing all goods, and enforcing a wicked central plan through massive government coercion."


.

 

[kaz]

Wow. A larger font. And yet you still couldn't come even remotely close to the meaning of fascism. Fascism involves dictatorship...which we don't have. Belligerent nationalism...which we don't have. Violent suppression of the press and political opposition....which we don't have. State sanctioned racism....which we don't have. And stringent socioeconomic controls....which we don't have.

But other than failing to meet virtually every defining characteristic of fascism, yeah.....we're a spot on match.

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

Fascism is an economic system where industry is technically in private ownership, but it's under government control. They must follow government economic policy and get all major decisions approved. It's often referred to as "socialism light" because it is one step removed from full socialism.

Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, but that doesn't mean everything they did was fascism. I'm a libertarian, when I eat pizza, that doesn't mean it's libertarian to eat pizza just because a libertarian ate pizza. The racism and nationalism were added to the definition later. Liberals aren't bright. As for nationalism, Hitler was no more nationalist than Stalin, so beyond that it was added to the definition doesn't make it specific to fascism.

 

[Skylar]

\
Remember, Mussolini rose from the radical press. He advocated for "fact checkers" in government to ensure "accuracy," much as the fascist democrats today demand. The democrats will also claim such a system is "freedom of the press."

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

As previously indicated in a fascist country , the bureaucrats micromanage the country.

The bureaucrats know that they can intervene in economic and social issues at anytime when THEY THEY THEY determine that is proper.

It is up to them to decide what degree of social and economic PRIVILEGES will be allowed.

That they have allowed us to certain certain PRIVILEGES is pure luck.


.


.


.

Wow. A larger font. And yet you still couldn't come even remotely close to the meaning of fascism. Fascism involves dictatorship...which we don't have. Belligerent nationalism...which we don't have. Violent suppression of the press and political opposition....which we don't have. State sanctioned racism....which we don't have. And stringent socioeconomic controls....which we don't have.

But other than failing to meet virtually every defining characteristic of fascism, yeah.....we're a spot on match.

Well dream on.

Read

John T. Flynn's classic work from 1944 on how wartime planning brought fascism to America. In some ways, this is the finest and most mature of all his works. It was written in wartime and his points were profoundly cutting. After all, the U.S. was supposedly fighting the total state abroad, but meanwhile at home was drafting people, controlling all prices and wages, rationing all goods, and enforcing a wicked central plan through massive government coercion."


.

Explain it to us. Give us specific examples that match the actual meaning of fascism. Simply posting the name of a book you've never read isn't evidence.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[Contumacious]

Wow. A larger font. And yet you still couldn't come even remotely close to the meaning of fascism. Fascism involves dictatorship...which we don't have. Belligerent nationalism...which we don't have. Violent suppression of the press and political opposition....which we don't have. State sanctioned racism....which we don't have. And stringent socioeconomic controls....which we don't have.

But other than failing to meet virtually every defining characteristic of fascism, yeah.....we're a spot on match.

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

Fascism is an economic system where industry is technically in private ownership, but it's under government control. They must follow government economic policy and get all major decisions approved. It's often referred to as "socialism light" because it is one step removed from full socialism.

Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, but that doesn't mean everything they did was fascism. I'm a libertarian, when I eat pizza, that doesn't mean it's libertarian to eat pizza just because a libertarian ate pizza. The racism and nationalism were added to the definition later. Liberals aren't bright. As for nationalism, Hitler was no more nationalist than Stalin, so beyond that it was added to the definition doesn't make it specific to fascism.

The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised "Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies" and "the development toward an authoritarian state" based on the "demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest." Roosevelt himself called Benito Mussolini "admirable" and professed that he was "deeply impressed by what he (had) accomplished."

 

[defcon4]

NSA

The NSA doesn't open letters or interrupt phone calls. Nor do they censor anything.

Where do you live my dear? Clue >>> You are on an electronic device using the internet. The same internet you use for emails. You probably use mobile phone. Oh.. I see, applying the same evesdropping and monitoring activity to electronic devices is too much of a stretch for you to understand.

And where do you live, hun? Because our conversation isn't being censored by the NSA. Nor are your phone conversations being interrupted by censors when they don't like the topic of your conversation.

And yet the NSA left that completely alone. Either you've completely confounded their vast censorship network with an emoticon.....or they don't censor anything.

I am just enjoying how you handle the spindle sweetheart. Spinning… spinning…

 

[Skylar]

Wow. A larger font. And yet you still couldn't come even remotely close to the meaning of fascism. Fascism involves dictatorship...which we don't have. Belligerent nationalism...which we don't have. Violent suppression of the press and political opposition....which we don't have. State sanctioned racism....which we don't have. And stringent socioeconomic controls....which we don't have.

But other than failing to meet virtually every defining characteristic of fascism, yeah.....we're a spot on match.

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

And by 'liberal redefinition', you mean the dictionary definition?

Fascism: (noun)

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

Don't take this the wrong way, but when it comes to definitions.....you v. the dictionary is a real easy choice.

Fascism is an economic system where industry is technically in private ownership, but it's under government control. They must follow government economic policy and get all major decisions approved. It's often referred to as "socialism light" because it is one step removed from full socialism.

What a lovely use of the passive voice. Often referred to as socialism light....by whom? Because I'm pretty sure that would be you.

 

[Skylar]

The NSA doesn't open letters or interrupt phone calls. Nor do they censor anything.

Where do you live my dear? Clue >>> You are on an electronic device using the internet. The same internet you use for emails. You probably use mobile phone. Oh.. I see, applying the same evesdropping and monitoring activity to electronic devices is too much of a stretch for you to understand.

And where do you live, hun? Because our conversation isn't being censored by the NSA. Nor are your phone conversations being interrupted by censors when they don't like the topic of your conversation.

And yet the NSA left that completely alone. Either you've completely confounded their vast censorship network with an emoticon.....or they don't censor anything.

I am just enjoying how you handle the spindle sweetheart. Spinning… spinning…

And the NSA let another of your posts through, hun. Imagine the odds. Either the NSA is just spectacularly bad at their job of censorship......or you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

Wow. A larger font. And yet you still couldn't come even remotely close to the meaning of fascism. Fascism involves dictatorship...which we don't have. Belligerent nationalism...which we don't have. Violent suppression of the press and political opposition....which we don't have. State sanctioned racism....which we don't have. And stringent socioeconomic controls....which we don't have.

But other than failing to meet virtually every defining characteristic of fascism, yeah.....we're a spot on match.

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

Fascism is an economic system where industry is technically in private ownership, but it's under government control. They must follow government economic policy and get all major decisions approved. It's often referred to as "socialism light" because it is one step removed from full socialism.

Hitler and Mussolini were fascists, but that doesn't mean everything they did was fascism. I'm a libertarian, when I eat pizza, that doesn't mean it's libertarian to eat pizza just because a libertarian ate pizza. The racism and nationalism were added to the definition later. Liberals aren't bright. As for nationalism, Hitler was no more nationalist than Stalin, so beyond that it was added to the definition doesn't make it specific to fascism.

The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised "Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies" and "the development toward an authoritarian state" based on the "demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest." Roosevelt himself called Benito Mussolini "admirable" and professed that he was "deeply impressed by what he (had) accomplished."

FDR certainly pushed this country far further towards socialism than any other US President

 

[kaz]

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

And by 'liberal redefinition', you mean the dictionary definition?

The dictionary definition which changed after WWII. Certainly the fascists of 30s Europe were racists, but that doesn't make racism part of the word. Well, unless you're a liberal academic...

 

[defcon4]

Where do you live my dear? Clue >>> You are on an electronic device using the internet. The same internet you use for emails. You probably use mobile phone. Oh.. I see, applying the same evesdropping and monitoring activity to electronic devices is too much of a stretch for you to understand.

And where do you live, hun? Because our conversation isn't being censored by the NSA. Nor are your phone conversations being interrupted by censors when they don't like the topic of your conversation.

And yet the NSA left that completely alone. Either you've completely confounded their vast censorship network with an emoticon.....or they don't censor anything.

I am just enjoying how you handle the spindle sweetheart. Spinning… spinning…

And the NSA let another of your posts through, hun. Imagine the odds. Either the NSA is just spectacularly bad at their job of censorship......or you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The reference I made to monitoring. Cool. There is a difference between monitoring and censoring. DID NOT I USE THE WORD EAVESDROPPING? Opps, sure thing I did. Let me see which one of the following bracket you fit perfectly in:
Imbecile was a medical category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal.[1][2] The term arises from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded. It included people with an IQ of 21–50, between "moron" (IQ of 51–70) and "idiot" (IQ of 0–20).[3]
Actually imbecile covers all intellectual disability. You know what? You pick. Then we are going to go getting some ice cream for you. Do you like ice cream or you would like something else? You need positive reinforcement for your fuck-up so you need to be rewarded; that's what the ice cream is about.

 

[Skylar]

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

And by 'liberal redefinition', you mean the dictionary definition?

The dictionary definition which changed after WWII. Certainly the fascists of 30s Europe were racists, but that doesn't make racism part of the word. Well, unless you're a liberal academic...

Says who?

Because the dictionary v. you on the meaning of words isn't a tough choice at all.

 

[Contumacious]

You are actually using the liberal redefinition of the term fascism.

And by 'liberal redefinition', you mean the dictionary definition?

The dictionary definition which changed after WWII. Certainly the fascists of 30s Europe were racists, but that doesn't make racism part of the word. Well, unless you're a liberal academic...

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

The questions to ask are the following?

1- Does the state own the means of production

Yes, then communism/socialism prevail


2- Does the state allow private ownership of property under state regulation? Do they have a say as to what our social liberties are?

Yes, fascism prevails


3- Does the state control the economy or social liberty in any way shape or form?

No, Capitalism/Free Market prevails.


.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

 

[Contumacious]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

Only to you because you lack the cognitive faculty to determine whether you are a freeman or a slave.


.

 

[kaz]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

I already addressed this. After WWII liberal academics decided to redefine the word. When Hitler and Mussilini were fascists, nationalism and racism weren't part of the definition. It was redefined for them.

I'm a libertarian and I eat pizza, so if you eat pizza, you are being a libertarian.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

Only to you because you lack the cognitive faculty to determine whether you are a freeman or a slave.


.

Or to anyone who was interested in say, the meaning of fascism, communism, capitalism, etc.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

I already addressed this. After WWII liberal academics decided to redefine the word. When Hitler and Mussilini were fascists, nationalism and racism weren't part of the definition. It was redefined for them.

I'm a libertarian and I eat pizza, so if you eat pizza, you are being a libertarian.

That's what you said. But you presented nothing to back it up. And you typing a claim isn't actually evidence of anything.

Meanwhile, the dictionary is excellent evidence of the meaning of words. And it contradicts you.

 

[Contumacious]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

Only to you because you lack the cognitive faculty to determine whether you are a freeman or a slave.


.

Or to anyone who was interested in say, the meaning of fascism, communism, capitalism, etc.

What difference does it make to you if the word Capitalism has been bastardized and now Capitalism, fascism and socialism all mean the same thing.

We now have to come up with a new name for that socioeconomic system where the government does NOT control the economy or the social aspect of our lives.

.

 

[Skylar]

The dictionary definitions are irrelevant.

Actually, the meanings of words is pretty relevant to a discussion about the meaning of words.

Only to you because you lack the cognitive faculty to determine whether you are a freeman or a slave.


.

Or to anyone who was interested in say, the meaning of fascism, communism, capitalism, etc.

What difference does it make to you if the word Capitalism has been bastardized and now Capitalism, fascism and socialism all mean the same thing.

We now have to come up with a new name for that socioeconomic system where the government does NOT control the economy or the social aspect of our lives.

.

The difference is that what you describe as fascism isn't fascism. As for capitalism, I've been specific in my praise and criticism. If you agree or disagree, tell me why.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Great read... but ironically, I have a shorter version:

Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties.

Socialism is the regulated structure designed to preclude the means to exchange anything, without the profit going to the socialists.

The former is self sustaining, as such is the natural order of economics, while the latter is not sustainable at all, with a dismal failure being found at every point where such has been tried, beyond the scope of very small, familial communities...