Fascism

[bripat9643]

Here is what you just said:

1. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both
2. Fascism is widely regarded as right wing.

You posted two sentences in sequence that contradict other. That's pretty much the story of this whole thread: one failed attempt at committing logic after another.

How do they contradict each other?
Nazism.
Fascism.

I've linked to sources already so I'm not going to repeat that.

Nazism is fascism.

Where some disagree with you on that is that fascism did not have a racial component to it and Nazism is primarily a racial superiority ideology.

Actually it isn't. Once again racial superiority was a tool. It is easier to kill an opponent if you think they are less than you. That's why they used the term sub human. It is all about political indoctrination. It was merely a propaganda tool to convince the people that the evil they were doing was righteous. The Nazis were huge into eugenics.

I disagree with that. Yes, I agree it's easier to kill when you dehumanize a group. But it wasn't just doing that. It was building up the idea of a master race - the Aryan race. What made it easy to sell was the overall postwar climate in Germany at the time which was dismal and humiliating. Eugenics was also becoming a prominant movement around the world and that fed into it. But the entire Nazi ideology revolved around the idea of racial superiority of the German people - that was absolutely central and distinctively different than other fascist movements. Hitler borrowed from different ideologies to make his own.

Racism isn't what distinguishes fascism. You just admitted that.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. I used to be like Coyote, I learned. Most of the members of La Raza are not malicious. There are some who are however, and quite virulently at that. Once again you wish to paint all with the brush that should only be applied to the few.

My wife is Hispanic, and she tells me stories all the time about other Hispanics she works with. A lot them are quite content to collect welfare and gloat about how dumb Americans are to pay them for doing nothing.

That is very true. Guess what, they amount to at most 20% of the illegals here. The rest are workers. I am still opposed to them being allowed to stay here because they create a two tier wage system and that harms ALL Americans.

It's hard to know how many posses that attitude without polling them, and even then they would probably lie about it if they did.

You can't know. What you can do is assume the best, but when you learn otherwise you treat THAT individual as they should be.

Sorry, I don't assume the best about people. I'm invariably disillusioned whenever I do.

Expect the best, plan for the worst. Just like Mattis tells his soldiers.

 

[bripat9643]

No, Coyote is c

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

 

[12icer]

Many more of those that moved North died then those who stayed in the south. The north was not bent on giving the ex slaves jobs, they didn't have enough for the whites and free blacks that were already there and those returning form their war. One of the reasons for the beginning of the original Trade Unions was to lock out black workers from jobs in the NORTH. I know you liberally educated indoctrinees don't know real history. The REAL history of the RECONSTRUCTION is long lost in a political, REGALIST attempt to hide the North's treachery. The National Socialist Party in Germany was built up as a savior of the German fatherland.

 

[Divine Wind]

No such thing as capitalism without regulation, you keep repeating the error. That's anarchy. The fact is the bigger government is the less competition there is.

Wrong again. There's laissez-faire capitalism which existed in the US under the Articles of Confederation. Snake-oil salesmen is an example of unfettered capitalism as were the Yankee traders under Caveat Emptor. Obviously some forms of capitalism are more sustainable than others.

I'd show a Wiki link but figured you wouldn't know how to follow the links so try these: Types of Capitalism | Economics Help

Teaching Business Ethics: 5 Types of Capitalism

Capitalism — Ayn Rand Lexicon

Laissez-Faire Capitalism

 

[Divine Wind]

I disagree. Unregulated capitalism is what made this country great. Unlimited socialism produced 100 million dead.

There hasn't been unregulated capitalism in this country since 1789.

I'm game for unregulated capitalism as long as it's legal for me to shoot anyone who sells me or mine an unsafe product.

 

[westwall]

No, Coyote is c
No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. Unregulated capitalism is what made this country great. Unlimited socialism produced 100 million dead.

There hasn't been unregulated capitalism in this country since 1789.

I'm game for unregulated capitalism as long as it's legal for me to shoot anyone who sells me or mine an unsafe product.

There was virtually no regulation until the FDA was created in 1906, and even then it remained minimal until the 1930s when FDR became Czar of all the Americas.

 

[bripat9643]

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

That's the history of the industrial revolution in England. In America it didn't begin until about 1840, when the first railroad was built.

Ford Motor company paid better wages than any company in America long before the unions took it over.

 

[12icer]

The actual events were almost exactly like the rise of the liberal dimoshit party here. Historically Hitlers party used labels to vilify and separate the people from each other, they used the whipping post of a economic strata separation, and assigned blame for the difference to each group by the position they had in mind for the group. They found an easy mark in the Jewish people because there was already some anti Jewish sentiment in Europe at the time, they used this to push an agenda of national socialist doctrine That included A STRONG CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT with a DICTATORIAL LEADER choosing who had what rights, how each group would be treated and viewed by public indoctrination, controlling media with limited targeted information and the installation of their supporters into the media outlets. That is just a start, SOUND LIKE ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY?

 

[westwall]

They didn't. After the Civil War many slaves stayed where they were. Just like a company in the north some of the plantations were nice and the slaves lived very well. You use far too many generalizations. Take a look at the average life expectancy's for workers in the north and the slaves. It was better for the slaves!

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

That's the history of the industrial revolution in England. In America it didn't begin until about 1840, when the first railroad was built.

Ford Motor company paid better wages than any company in America long before the unions took it over.

I guess you never hear of Eli Whitney? Try 1794 for the beginning of industrialization here in the USA. His Cotton Gin (short for engine) could produce in an hour what a whole bunch of workers could do in a day.

Ford was the exception to the rule and he did it to retain the workers he had been training. He was the first employer to figure out it cost more to constantly train replacements than it did to pay good workers more money so that they would stay.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is what you implied in your post to Coyote. There are few people who are malicious. That's the point. Most are merely uninformed. It is our duty to inform those who wish to learn. Insulting them doesn't help, nor does it impress those sitting on the sidelines trying to learn.

I disagree with your theory that few people are malicious. If you want to see the proof of that, just watch this video:



Your also mistaken if you believe people like Coyote are capable of "learning" anything. Her views are set in concrete. The more irrefutable the facts and logic you post are, the harder she will defend her delusions.

Wrong. I used to be like Coyote, I learned. Most of the members of La Raza are not malicious. There are some who are however, and quite virulently at that. Once again you wish to paint all with the brush that should only be applied to the few.

My wife is Hispanic, and she tells me stories all the time about other Hispanics she works with. A lot them are quite content to collect welfare and gloat about how dumb Americans are to pay them for doing nothing.

That is very true. Guess what, they amount to at most 20% of the illegals here. The rest are workers. I am still opposed to them being allowed to stay here because they create a two tier wage system and that harms ALL Americans.

The Americans that hire and exploit these workers are not harmed, many of the employers fail to pay payroll takes while paying less than the minimum wage, and some hold back pay for arbitrary reasons since the worker has no recourse.

 

[bripat9643]

That is what you implied in your post to Coyote. There are few people who are malicious. That's the point. Most are merely uninformed. It is our duty to inform those who wish to learn. Insulting them doesn't help, nor does it impress those sitting on the sidelines trying to learn.

I disagree with your theory that few people are malicious. If you want to see the proof of that, just watch this video:



Your also mistaken if you believe people like Coyote are capable of "learning" anything. Her views are set in concrete. The more irrefutable the facts and logic you post are, the harder she will defend her delusions.

Wrong. I used to be like Coyote, I learned. Most of the members of La Raza are not malicious. There are some who are however, and quite virulently at that. Once again you wish to paint all with the brush that should only be applied to the few.

My wife is Hispanic, and she tells me stories all the time about other Hispanics she works with. A lot them are quite content to collect welfare and gloat about how dumb Americans are to pay them for doing nothing.

That is very true. Guess what, they amount to at most 20% of the illegals here. The rest are workers. I am still opposed to them being allowed to stay here because they create a two tier wage system and that harms ALL Americans.

The Americans that hire and exploit these workers are not harmed, many of the employers fail to pay payroll takes while paying less than the minimum wage, and some hold back pay for arbitrary reasons since the worker has no recourse.

American workers are harmed. The only reason employers can mistreat these workers is because they are illegal and therefore can't complain about their treatment to legal authorities. Everything you described is blatantly illegal.

 

[bripat9643]

I've never seen any figures on slave life expectancy vs. the life expectancy of free men. Do you have a source? I'd like to see it.

You can't deny the fact that people left the farm and flocked to work in the factories. That's because the alternative is that many of them would end up dead in short order.

All the evidence I've seen is that life expectancy increased dramatically during the industrial revolution. Prior to it, 35 was about the average life expectancy. by the end of the 19th century it was up to 55. That's an increase of 20 years in a century.

The reason why the people left the farms is because they were no longer needed on them. Are you really that ignorant of that part of history? Industrialization affected the farms before it did anything else. Add to that the railroads which allowed food to be transported to the cities to feed everyone and yes, industrialization helped to increase the quality of life. Immeasurably. But the factory workers were the last ones to see that benefit.

You just posited a chicken and egg theory. People left the farm because industrialization meant they were no longer needed, but that presupposes that factories already existed. So where did the people who worked in these factories that already existed come from? How did they produce anything and make people on farms redundant if they weren't already running and staffed with people from farms?

No, I didn't. Factories started to be built in the 1700's. The Luddites began to figure out they were going to be useless around the 1810-11 time frame. That is when industrialization really took off. From that point on it was exponential growth. Manufacturing jobs have always been one of the smallest sectors, but after the unions came along, it was also one of the better paid sectors for those with no real education.

That's the history of the industrial revolution in England. In America it didn't begin until about 1840, when the first railroad was built.

Ford Motor company paid better wages than any company in America long before the unions took it over.

I guess you never hear of Eli Whitney? Try 1794 for the beginning of industrialization here in the USA. His Cotton Gin (short for engine) could produce in an hour what a whole bunch of workers could do in a day.

Ford was the exception to the rule and he did it to retain the workers he had been training. He was the first employer to figure out it cost more to constantly train replacements than it did to pay good workers more money so that they would stay.

Cotton Gins where not used in factories. Each plantation had their own. The first factories were engaged in making textiles.

Textile industry - Wikipedia

Industrial revolution[edit]
Main article: Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution
The woven fabric portion of the textile industry grew out of the industrial revolution in the 18th century as mass production of yarn and cloth became a mainstream industry.[8]

In 1734 in Bury, Lancashire, John Kay invented the flying shuttle — one of the first of a series of inventions associated with the cotton woven fabric industry. The flying shuttle increased the width of cotton cloth and speed of production of a single weaver at a loom.[9] Resistance by workers to the perceived threat to jobs delayed the widespread introduction of this technology, even though the higher rate of production generated an increased demand for spun cotton.

​

Shuttles
In 1761, the Duke of Bridgewater's canal connected Manchester to the coal fields of Worsley and in 1762, Matthew Boulton opened theSoho Foundry engineering works in Handsworth, Birmingham. His partnership with Scottish engineer James Watt resulted, in 1775, in the commercial production of the more efficient Watt steam engine which used a separate condenser.

In 1764, James Hargreaves is credited as inventor of the spinning jenny which multiplied the spun thread production capacity of a single worker — initially eightfold and subsequently much further. Others[10] credit the invention to Thomas Highs. Industrial unrest and a failure to patent the invention until 1770 forced Hargreaves from Blackburn, but his lack of protection of the idea allowed the concept to be exploited by others. As a result, there were over 20,000 spinning jennies in use by the time of his death. Also in 1764, Thorp Mill, the first water-powered cotton mill in the world was constructed at Royton, Lancashire, and was used for carding cotton. With the spinning and weaving process now mechanized, cotton mills cropped up all over the North West of England.

The stocking frame invented in 1589 for silk became viable when in 1759, Jedediah Strutt introduced an attachment for the frame which produced what became known as the Derby Rib, which allowed stockings to be manufactured in cotton. Nottingham, a traditional centre for lacework, had allowed the use of the protected stocking frame since 1728.[citation needed]
​

So that puts the start of the Industrial Revolution in England at about 1760.

​

 

[Divine Wind]

There was virtually no regulation until the FDA was created in 1906, and even then it remained minimal until the 1930s when FDR became Czar of all the Americas.

Keyword "virtually". Nice to see you admit there was regulation before 1906.

There was also regulation in the form of tariffs, taxes, bans and other restrictions after 1789.

Examples:
The Tariff of 1789 Tariff of 1789

The Whiskey tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion: The 1791 Excise Whiskey Tax | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

 

[Divine Wind]

American workers are harmed. The only reason employers can mistreat these workers is because they are illegal and therefore can't complain about their treatment to legal authorities. Everything you described is blatantly illegal.

Additional proof you favor Big Government getting involved when it suits you.

 

[bripat9643]

There was virtually no regulation until the FDA was created in 1906, and even then it remained minimal until the 1930s when FDR became Czar of all the Americas.

Keyword "virtually". Nice to see you admit there was regulation before 1906.

There was also regulation in the form of tariffs, taxes, bans and other restrictions after 1789.

Examples:
The Tariff of 1789 Tariff of 1789

The Whiskey tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion: The 1791 Excise Whiskey Tax | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Tariffs are not regulations. They are taxes. Before the income tax, tariffs were the federal government's primary source of income. Taxes are also not regulations. However, both tariffs and taxes can have an affect on what get's produced in the country. I'm not aware of anything that was banned prior to prohibition. Americans didn't believe the federal government had the authority to ban anything prior to that. That's why they passed an Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

American workers are harmed. The only reason employers can mistreat these workers is because they are illegal and therefore can't complain about their treatment to legal authorities. Everything you described is blatantly illegal.

Additional proof you favor Big Government getting involved when it suits you.

Controlling the border is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Calling it "big government" is propaganda. It's no more "big government" than arresting people for robbery or trespassing.

 

[Divine Wind]

Controlling the border is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Calling it "big government" is propaganda. It's no more "big government" than arresting people for robbery or trespassing.

Bullshit, but thanks for the carpet dance.

 

[Divine Wind]

Tariffs are not regulations. They are taxes. ....

Seriously? So taxes don't regulate capitalism? An interesting position, but I completely disagree. "Sin taxes" are one way Liberals both regulate certain products while also making money off of them.