Fascism vs Socialism?

[elvis]

Where does the US government no longer recognise individual rights?

The use of certain substances is prohibited. If people choose to use them then they are breaking the law. That's not a failure to recognise individual rights.

Individual rights are never absolute.

alright di where did you go?

Here.

difference between fascism, socialism, and "national socialism"?

 

[Contumacious]

[What is necessary is an appropriate strategy of calibrating the violent means utilized so as to promote the most desirable consequences, which would involve harm reduction.

WHO determines what constitutes the most desirable consequences?

But the more pertinent issue that you should focus on is that the capitalist economy is not meritocratic in nature, since individuals are not allowed to rise and fall on their own merits.

HUH?

Transactions in a Capitalist socio-economic system are VOLUNTARY in nature so your "are not allowed" claim does not compute.

Firstly, the New Deal was designed to maintain an arrangement wherein the means of production are privately owned, thus rendering it capitalist in nature.

I see, so you see the act of impregnating a woman as an attempt to save her virginity.

Once has to be gullible to the max to conclude that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) which required a massive federal intervention in the economy was "saving Capitalism" instead of enriching FDR a demagogue.

For you to totally conceal the fact that the Federal government had controlled banking, credit and the currency since 1913 tells me that you a fraud. . In 1935 the US was deep into fascism .


Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt

In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.

Hitler and Roosevelt also shared a common commitment to such programs as government-business partnerships. In fact, until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which cartelized American industry, along with his “Blue Eagle” propaganda campaign, was the type of economic fascism that Hitler himself was embracing in Germany (as fascist ruler Benito Mussolini was also doing in Italy)

Secondly, the nature of fascism was also capitalist in nature,

And you also believe that a woman can be 1/2 pregnant.

Only someone determined to perpetrate a massive fraud would claim that an economy is BOTH fascist and capitalist . Capitalism is freedom - fascism is tyrannical , so how the **** can a socio-economic system be free and dictatorial at the same time ?

There was collusion between state and corporate authorities, but not substantial coercion of private enterprises by the Nazi regime in the industrial sector, because they regarded that as an exercise in futility that would ultimately have the effect of undermining efficiency.

True. Hitler recognized that the form of statism known as fascism was better that socialism . The German entrepreneurs accepted fascism for the same reasons that I would prefer to be afflicted by pneumonia instead of the H1N1 virus.


First, where Communism seeks to substitute the state for private ownership, fascism seeks to incorporate or co-opt private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership. Thus fascism tends to be more tempting than Communism to wealthy interests who may see it as a way to insulate their economic power from competition through forced cartelization and other corporatist stratagems.

Your references to "socialism" and "communism" aren't accurate; the very nature of socialism is entirely contrary to any element of dictatorship, because collective ownership and management is a necessary condition.

What the **** is "collective management"? Can I tell the collective managers to **** off and leave my widget factory alone?!?!?!?!?!?

Moreover, the mixed economy is not a "combination" of socialism and capitalism; it's a variant of capitalism, with socialism (public ownership/management of the means of production) not playing a role.

I see, so you can mix liberty and slavery and the end result is still liberty. Hummmmm, Let me guess, you are smoking Mexican sinsemilla, right?

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. If every iota of property was privately owned, destabilization and eventual collapse would be inevitable conditions.

Because......

This is a laughably fallacious defense of capitalism, and one that fails to note its authoritarian nature.

Elaborate on the "authoritarian" nature of Capitalism - explain to me how Capitalism - i a socio economic system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. - is authoritarian in nature.


I won't hold my breath.


.

 

[Contumacious]

No government can recognize individual rights sufficiently, which is why the principled libertarian will reject government altogether.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men

 

[Diuretic]

alright di where did you go?

Here.

difference between fascism, socialism, and "national socialism"?

If I remember rightly, L.K.Eder posted a pretty good analysis of national socialism. I should remember more than I do but I seem to recall that Hitler's mates pushed the socialists out of the party and turned it into a tool of totalitarian policy.

Also I think I'm right in stating that Mussolini was a Fascist and that Hitler learned a thing or two about melding the state and capitalism.

Socialism has many facets. It's been theorised endlessly until now we can see models - yes I know, abstract perfect concepts but you have to start somewhere don't you? - that are much more advanced than the original concepts. As I've said elsewhere, the Yugoslav model worked (I still haven't Google to find the duration and reasons for its collapse). It worked in Hungary too, well a brief observation in situ by me in the early 1980s told me it wasn't too bad. I suspect the Hungarians might be bemoaning the dismantling of their system and its replacement with a much more market-oriented economy. But I could be wrong on that. In fact I could be wrong on everything I've written.

 

[edthecynic]

Fascism is not the OPPOSITE of any mainstream ideology....it can be incorporated into any groups doctrine. Simply declaring that fascism is the opposite of LIBERALISM or Democracy is nonsense....

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism,
both in the political and the economic sphere.
- BENITO MUSSOLINI

 

[Ringel05]

No dissertation, I won't ask for what I'm not capable of. I was just asking what differentiates capitalism from other forms of economy. I thought it was the ability to not just make a profit on a transaction but to make a profit extracted from labour and then build on that profit. Surplus value and all that.

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.

 

[Ringel05]

Here.

difference between fascism, socialism, and "national socialism"?

If I remember rightly, L.K.Elder posted a pretty good analysis of national socialism. I should remember more than I do but I seem to recall that Hitler's mates pushed the socialists out of the party and turned it into a tool of totalitarian policy.

Also I think I'm right in stating that Mussolini was a Fascist and that Hitler learned a thing or two about melding the state and capitalism.

Socialism has many facets. It's been theorised endlessly until now we can see models - yes I know, abstract perfect concepts but you have to start somewhere don't you? - that are much more advanced than the original concepts. As I've said elsewhere, the Yugoslav model worked (I still haven't Google to find the duration and reasons for its collapse). It worked in Hungary too, well a brief observation in situ by me in the early 1980s told me it wasn't too bad. I suspect the Hungarians might be bemoaning the dismantling of their system and its replacement with a much more market-oriented economy. But I could be wrong on that. In fact I could be wrong on everything I've written.

These various threads concerning economic forms/comparisons forced me to do some rereading of some of my old books. J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., in my opinion, comes closest to describing Hitler's Naziism. Rosser details the socio-economic reality in Germany at the time and shows that while Naziism did contain elements of socialist Fascism the actual form was more akin to Controlled Capitalism. Remember, in nearly all but Eugenics and military abilities, Hitler was a pragmatist.

 

[Contumacious]

These various threads concerning economic forms/comparisons forced me to do some rereading of some of my old books. J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., in my opinion, comes closest to describing Hitler's Naziism. Rosser details the socio-economic reality in Germany at the time and shows that while Naziism did contain elements of socialist Fascism the actual form was more akin to Controlled Capitalism. .

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."


.

 

[Ringel05]

These various threads concerning economic forms/comparisons forced me to do some rereading of some of my old books. J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., in my opinion, comes closest to describing Hitler's Naziism. Rosser details the socio-economic reality in Germany at the time and shows that while Naziism did contain elements of socialist Fascism the actual form was more akin to Controlled Capitalism. .

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!
Notice it was Jr not Sr that I was referencing.

 

[Contumacious]

These various threads concerning economic forms/comparisons forced me to do some rereading of some of my old books. J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., in my opinion, comes closest to describing Hitler's Naziism. Rosser details the socio-economic reality in Germany at the time and shows that while Naziism did contain elements of socialist Fascism the actual form was more akin to Controlled Capitalism. .

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.


.


.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

I'll use "controlled capitalism" if I wish, especially if I'm quoting someone within that context. Whether you personally like it or not it's still a valid descriptive "concept". Basically don't tell me what I can or cannot use. Besides which your application of Statism in the general sense is a personal perspective, not reality, it's not that black and white.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

I'll use "controlled capitalism" if I wish, especially if I'm quoting someone within that context. Whether you personally like it or not it's still a valid descriptive "concept". Basically don't tell me what I can or cannot use. Besides which your application of Statism in the general sense is a personal perspective, not reality, it's not that black and white.

Interesting. Are you saying one cannot tell when Statism exists or not?

Or, are you saying that Statism is a range in practical application and when applied some may disagree as to whether one policy or a collection of policies are Statist?

Also on the above point about Hitler being practical related to economics, I have to disagree. Hilter did not give a shit about economics. He didn't understand it and didn't pretend to. He told his finance minister to make the money appear and he didn't care how it happened. The finance minister was quite able and made money appear when Hitler needed it. If you want to call that economic pragmatism, I think you stretching the meaning.

 

[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.

I'll use "controlled capitalism" if I wish, especially if I'm quoting someone within that context. Whether you personally like it or not it's still a valid descriptive "concept". Basically don't tell me what I can or cannot use. Besides which your application of Statism in the general sense is a personal perspective, not reality, it's not that black and white.

My bad, I assume that you were a serious researcher. I guess we can call apples oranges, and still claim that the earth is flat.....so knock yourself out.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

I'll use "controlled capitalism" if I wish, especially if I'm quoting someone within that context. Whether you personally like it or not it's still a valid descriptive "concept". Basically don't tell me what I can or cannot use. Besides which your application of Statism in the general sense is a personal perspective, not reality, it's not that black and white.

Interesting. Are you saying one cannot tell when Statism exists or not?

Or, are you saying that Statism is a range in practical application and when applied some may disagree as to whether one policy or a collection of policies are Statist?

Also on the above point about Hitler being practical related to economics, I have to disagree. Hilter did not give a shit about economics. He didn't understand it and didn't pretend to. He told his finance minister to make the money appear and he didn't care how it happened. The finance minister was quite able and made money appear when Hitler needed it. If you want to call that economic pragmatism, I think you stretching the meaning.

I never said Statism is a range within practical applications, What I was driving at is all modern economies are hybrids and just because of this doesn't necessitate that if it's not in it's true form makes it is Statism.
I also never said Hitler was an "economic" pragmatist, I just said he was pragmatic therefore confirming your assessment.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

I'll use "controlled capitalism" if I wish, especially if I'm quoting someone within that context. Whether you personally like it or not it's still a valid descriptive "concept". Basically don't tell me what I can or cannot use. Besides which your application of Statism in the general sense is a personal perspective, not reality, it's not that black and white.

Interesting. Are you saying one cannot tell when Statism exists or not?

.

"In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have . . . taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence . . . ."


Ayn Rand


.

 

[Contumacious]

I'll use "controlled capitalism" if I wish, especially if I'm quoting someone within that context. Whether you personally like it or not it's still a valid descriptive "concept". Basically don't tell me what I can or cannot use. Besides which your application of Statism in the general sense is a personal perspective, not reality, it's not that black and white.

Interesting. Are you saying one cannot tell when Statism exists or not?

Or, are you saying that Statism is a range in practical application and when applied some may disagree as to whether one policy or a collection of policies are Statist?

Also on the above point about Hitler being practical related to economics, I have to disagree. Hilter did not give a shit about economics. He didn't understand it and didn't pretend to. He told his finance minister to make the money appear and he didn't care how it happened. The finance minister was quite able and made money appear when Hitler needed it. If you want to call that economic pragmatism, I think you stretching the meaning.

I never said Statism is a range within practical applications, What I was driving at is all modern economies are hybrids and just because of this doesn't necessitate that if it's not in it's true form makes it is Statism.

* Main Entry: stat·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry


.

 

[Ringel05]

Interesting. Are you saying one cannot tell when Statism exists or not?

Or, are you saying that Statism is a range in practical application and when applied some may disagree as to whether one policy or a collection of policies are Statist?

Also on the above point about Hitler being practical related to economics, I have to disagree. Hilter did not give a shit about economics. He didn't understand it and didn't pretend to. He told his finance minister to make the money appear and he didn't care how it happened. The finance minister was quite able and made money appear when Hitler needed it. If you want to call that economic pragmatism, I think you stretching the meaning.

I never said Statism is a range within practical applications, What I was driving at is all modern economies are hybrids and just because of this doesn't necessitate that if it's not in it's true form makes it is Statism.

* Main Entry: stat·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry


.

Amazing! It looks just like the definition I have in my books. How does that support your original argument with me, other than it's your interpretation of it's application?

 

[Contumacious]

I never said Statism is a range within practical applications, What I was driving at is all modern economies are hybrids and just because of this doesn't necessitate that if it's not in it's true form makes it is Statism.

* Main Entry: stat·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry


.

Amazing! It looks just like the definition I have in my books. How does that support your original argument with me, other than it's your interpretation of it's application?

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


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


.

 

[Ringel05]

* Main Entry: stat·ism
* Pronunciation: \ˈstā-ˌti-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1919

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry


.

Amazing! It looks just like the definition I have in my books. How does that support your original argument with me, other than it's your interpretation of it's application?

OK Vernon, we are making some progress here so don't **** 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.

 

[Contumacious]

Amazing! It looks just like the definition I have in my books. How does that support your original argument with me, other than it's your interpretation of it's application?

OK Vernon, we are making some progress here so don't **** 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)