How America can have the best fascist government the world has ever seen!

[Lifesaver]

Fascism is not a type of socialism. Private property is not outlawed in fascist systems. Read up on Mussolini. He states that fascism is the exact opposite of Marxian socialism. You appear to be conflating the two because of totalitarianism.

I'm sorry to tell you, nvxplorer, but in fascism the economy is completely planned by the State.
People get to keep their nominal "rights of property", but who decided prices and quantities was the government.

Mussolini, if he ever stated that, just as a way to try to differentiate his ideology from marxism. After he had already lost, he founded a socialist republic of Saló, which lasted few days before it was again taken over.

Furthermore, Hitler and Stalin were allies, even dividing Poland between themselves. It was only after Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR that socialism and fascism (of which nazism is a subdivision) became "enemies", and one of the greatest victories of socialist propaganda was to convince the world that socialism and fascism are oposed to one another.

In reality, both are essentially the same system, though they stem from different ideas: socialism from the rationalist materialism of Marx, and fascism from irrationalist mystical millenarist (heretical) traditions of Europe.
One looking forward to the utopia, the other to the millenium.

And both traditions, though seemingly opposed, meet at their plan for society.

 

[Moros]

In a nutshell: America is ripe and ready for the picking, e.g., a fascist takeover.

Phtt, no it isn't. The federal government would order the army to squash any significant uprising, and it would without question. I've heard it been said that the government would never send the army to attack its own citizens because this is a democracy, but frankly, that's idealistic bullplop. If the power structure were truly threatened, it would do everything possible to protect itself, no matter if the people supported it or not.

Nobody votes for revolutions.

 

[Crusader05]

In a nutshell: America is ripe and ready for the picking, e.g., a fascist takeover.

Phtt, no it isn't. The federal government would order the army to squash any significant uprising, and it would without question. I've heard it been said that the government would never send the army to attack its own citizens because this is a democracy, but frankly, that's idealistic bullplop. If the power structure were truly threatened, it would do everything possible to protect itself, no matter if the people supported it or not.

Nobody votes for revolutions.

Your right, there wont be a revolution from the outside. Instead it will be a take-over from the inside!

The powerful money instest have controlled the political system for years, they run the country de facto, now it will only be a matter of time before the tear down the facade.

 

[TheBear]

You still beating that old drum? It's been around since WWII.

 

[Alarum]

I'm sorry to tell you, nvxplorer, but in fascism the economy is completely planned by the State.
People get to keep their nominal "rights of property", but who decided prices and quantities was the government.

Mussolini, if he ever stated that, just as a way to try to differentiate his ideology from marxism. After he had already lost, he founded a socialist republic of Saló, which lasted few days before it was again taken over.

Furthermore, Hitler and Stalin were allies, even dividing Poland between themselves. It was only after Hitler betrayed Stalin and invaded the USSR that socialism and fascism (of which nazism is a subdivision) became "enemies", and one of the greatest victories of socialist propaganda was to convince the world that socialism and fascism are oposed to one another.

In reality, both are essentially the same system, though they stem from different ideas: socialism from the rationalist materialism of Marx, and fascism from irrationalist mystical millenarist (heretical) traditions of Europe.
One looking forward to the utopia, the other to the millenium.

And both traditions, though seemingly opposed, meet at their plan for society.

Fascism doesn't plan an economic system. It lets others plan its economic system: Corporations. It focuses and concentrates power into the hands of corporations, under a guise of patriotism and foreign threat. Fascism finds its natural allies in corporations, while Marxism finds its worst enemies.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
- Giovanni Gentile (The Karl Marx of Facism)

 

[Lifesaver]

Fascism doesn't plan an economic system. It lets others plan its economic system: Corporations. It focuses and concentrates power into the hands of corporations, under a guise of patriotism and foreign threat. Fascism finds its natural allies in corporations, while Marxism finds its worst enemies.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
- Giovanni Gentile (The Karl Marx of Facism)

Not in Italy and Germany and Spain, which had fascist governments.
There there was a strong rhetoric against "bankers, capitalists, etc" because of their "unproductive wealth", and State-assigned managers actually planned the economy.

It is true that big companies may try to side themselves with the government against capitalism and the free market, as often happens (for instance, in protectionist measures, subsidies, etc), but shareholders and firm owners lose altogether their power to decide prices and quantities, and remain only as nominal owners, and that as long as they don't cause any trouble with the fascist authorities.

 

[Alarum]

Not in Italy and Germany and Spain, which had fascist governments.
There there was a strong rhetoric against "bankers, capitalists, etc" because of their "unproductive wealth", and State-assigned managers actually planned the economy.

It is true that big companies may try to side themselves with the government against capitalism and the free market, as often happens (for instance, in protectionist measures, subsidies, etc), but shareholders and firm owners lose altogether their power to decide prices and quantities, and remain only as nominal owners, and that as long as they don't cause any trouble with the fascist authorities.

And the state assigned managers were often under the control of people who ran other large corporations, or were just plain the people who ran the large corporations themselves. Note the distinction between productive wealth, which was good for the nation-syndicate, and the unproductive wealth (naturally those who were not good for the nation-syndicate). Yes, it was bad for the shareholders, of course, and for the people, and for the owners of firms who were not in line with the government's position, but that's the nature of it. The syndicate maintains the economic controls, the government maintains the social controls, and you have a corporate state.

 

[Aimee30]

Here are some interesting quotes I found.

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Herman Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

Now, compair that with some prominent conservative "thinkers" of today.

Micheal Weiner (aka Micheal Savage)
To fight only the al-Qaida scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who." From his book, Savage Nation, January, 2003.

Rush Limbaugh
I'm going to tell you, what's good for al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today. That's how you boil this down. And it doesn't have to be al-Qaeda. What's good for terrorists is good for John Kerry. All you got to do is check the way they react. [3/15/04]

Ann Coulter (shudder)
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." - Talking Ann Coulter doll, Conservative Book Service [1] (from Slander, pp. 5-6; published June 2002)
My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism." - MSNBC February 8, 1997
"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, August 17, 1997.


Anyone else notice a striking similarity between these quotes?
Source for all quotes: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Main_Page

They're ridiculous in my opinion. I see more evidence for facism in the other party. It appears to be the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Marek]

I don't believe this, but I thought it was funny that the accusations can go both ways:

There continues to remain conservative, libertarian, and independent view points that the Bill Clinton administration was fascist. They point to Clinton's attempt to "centralize" the financial and economic markets and to socialize the economy. They also suggest a liberal control of the media and contend that the media worked in collusion with the administration. Likewise, many of Hillary Clinton's policies have been criticized as fascist.

Certain actions taken by Clinton during his administration have also caused critics to call his administration Fascist:

• Military actions in Bosnia, Somalia, and Sudan.
• Actions taken at Waco, TX in dealing with the Branch Davidians.
• The actions taken in regards to the Elian Gonzales situation in Florida.
• Motions towards the accumulation of control at the federal level, leading to fears of totalitarianism (one of many aspects of a potential Fascist state).

 

[nvxplorer]

Not in Italy and Germany and Spain, which had fascist governments.
There there was a strong rhetoric against "bankers, capitalists, etc" because of their "unproductive wealth", and State-assigned managers actually planned the economy.

The only industry that was nationalized in Hitler’s Germany was the railroads. By definition, all or most industries must be nationalized in a socialist or communist system. There were plenty of industries which were “unproductive” towards the war effort, notably the film industry (which was of course co-opted by Hitler), and these industries remained as privately held, for profit companies. Siemens was incorporated in Germany in the mid-19th century, and has remained in private hands ever since. Rhetoric, even if true, is irrelevant. Socialist theory incorporates the proletariat rising up and seizing ownership of the factors of production. No such requirement is made by fascism.

It is true that big companies may try to side themselves with the government against capitalism and the free market, as often happens (for instance, in protectionist measures, subsidies, etc), but shareholders and firm owners lose altogether their power to decide prices and quantities, and remain only as nominal owners, and that as long as they don't cause any trouble with the fascist authorities.

Subsidies, import quotas, indeed, fiscal and monetary policy all effect a company’s performance. This effect is not always negative, and shareholders are never nominal owners. Production and price are functions of supply and demand, not the whim of shareholders.

Fascism is not a type of socialism, which was your original argument. Totalitarian regimes come in all flavors, but governmental control of the economy, in itself, is not sufficient to indicate socialism. By this definition, the US Fed, fiscal and trade policy would indicate a socialist government. Brutal monarchies long before Marx would be considered socialist. Socialism is well defined. Fascism is not so well defined, but it is entirely irrelevant to socialism.

 

[Lifesaver]

Fascism is not a type of socialism, which was your original argument. Totalitarian regimes come in all flavors, but governmental control of the economy, in itself, is not sufficient to indicate socialism. By this definition, the US Fed, fiscal and trade policy would indicate a socialist government. Brutal monarchies long before Marx would be considered socialist. Socialism is well defined. Fascism is not so well defined, but it is entirely irrelevant to socialism.

By socialism I mean planned economy, in which the market is not allowed to operate even if with restrictions. This is the case in both ordinarily called socialist and fascist countries.
The Nazi party was not called "National Socialist Party" for a "mistake" in the men behind it.
The film industry, which you cite, is another good example of how equal both systems are: in both communications are absolutely controlled by the State, which uses them for its own propaganda.

The sole difference you are able to cite is that, in fascism, companies still have "owners" who are not State workers. Still, that is a difference in name only; in practice, who controls all companies in the fascist country is the government, just like in the socialist one.

Don't believe me? Then by all means read the works of economists who were writing in that time and living in countries which came under fascist or socialist rule. I personally recommend Ludwig Von Mises, one the most important economists of the 20th century, who wrote extensively on the subject.

Modern social-democracies are interventionist countries, in which the State imposes many restrictions and tries to control the economy in many ways, but still the market is not abolished and people mostly keep their property rights (not in name only, but also in practice).

Plus, Marx is in no way the "inventor" of socialism. Socialism existed long before him. What Marx is responsible for is "scientific socialism", his attempt of making it something rational ("scientific") rather than merely utopic dreams. So it is perfectly possible to speak of socialism "before Marx".

Only socialists and fascists still continue to see differences between their systems. In practice they are the same, though they stem from opposite conceptions (both equally wrong) of the universe.

 

[nvxplorer]

I appreciate your replies, Lifesaver, and I don’t completely disagree with you (though in principle and theory, I still disagree). I’ve had this argument too many times to count, and I’m just not up to it anymore.

I will make one comment, though. The Nazi Party was originally a socialist party, but abandoned nearly all of its socialist ideals under Hitler.

 

[UberLutheran]

Mein fuhrer, I can walk!

Why do people trust the government?

...ALL of them!

(Ahhhhh, memories of conservatory. Fortunately, therapy has taken most of the 'sting' out of those memories... )

 

[Alarum]

By socialism I mean planned economy, in which the market is not allowed to operate even if with restrictions. This is the case in both ordinarily called socialist and fascist countries.
The Nazi party was not called "National Socialist Party" for a "mistake" in the men behind it.
The film industry, which you cite, is another good example of how equal both systems are: in both communications are absolutely controlled by the State, which uses them for its own propaganda.

The sole difference you are able to cite is that, in fascism, companies still have "owners" who are not State workers. Still, that is a difference in name only; in practice, who controls all companies in the fascist country is the government, just like in the socialist one.

The owners, as you put it, make no attempt to equalize the wealth. In fact, unlike socialism, the effort is to concentrate the wealth in to a limited area, where theoretically it can do the most good for the nation-state. Practially it's feudalism. In any case it doesn't resemble socialism in any way except that it alters the economy. Sadly, you cannot arbitrarily redefine words that way, and fascism and socialism remain very different.

 

[BrownCoat]

The owners, as you put it, make no attempt to equalize the wealth. In fact, unlike socialism, the effort is to concentrate the wealth in to a limited area, where theoretically it can do the most good for the nation-state. Practially it's feudalism. In any case it doesn't resemble socialism in any way except that it alters the economy. Sadly, you cannot arbitrarily redefine words that way, and fascism and socialism remain very different.

Err...unless Bill Gates is counting gold coins like Prince John, then he is hardly "concentrating the wealth."

Bill Gates does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[nvxplorer]

Err...unless Bill Gates is counting gold coins like Prince John, then he is hardly "concentrating the wealth."

Bill Gates does not exist in a vacuum.

What does Bill Gates have to do with fascism?

 

[BrownCoat]

What does Bill Gates have to do with fascism?

I was replying to Alarum's post about how a minority makes no attempt to spread the wealth.

Bill Gates is an "owner." Unless he exists solely in some sort of of limbo by himself, than simply by purchasing goods and services, he is spreading around his wealth.

 

[Maxwell511]

Bill Gates is an "owner." Unless he exists solely in some sort of of limbo by himself, than simply by purchasing goods and services, he is spreading around his wealth.

The point about not spreading the wealth is that those who produce don't get adequate return on their labour investment compared to those that invest capital.

 

[BrownCoat]

The point about not spreading the wealth is that those who produce don't get adequate return on their labour investment compared to those that invest capital.

What is an "adequate return"? And who defines what an adequate return for one's labor is?

Then again, investing capital could be considered a form of labor. It is a skill, and it takes time and effort to learn that skill. Also, investing capital also carries greater risk than selling ones labor.

 

[Maxwell511]

What is an "adequate return"? And who defines what an adequate return for one's labor is?

Those that invest capital can gain more from if the performance of their investment is good. Most labourers at a fixed rate of return cannot gain from the performance of their investment.

Then again, investing capital could be considered a form of labor. It is a skill, and it takes time and effort to learn that skill. Also, investing capital also carries greater risk than selling ones labor.

There are risk involved with both.