PDA

View Full Version : Fascism vs. Socialism



Odysseus
04-08-2009, 05:28 PM
It occurs to me that those who call our current leadership "socialist" are missing the big picture. Of the two major economic/political systems to come out of the Great Depression, the response to the current crisis looks more like fascism than socialism. The major difference is that in a socialist state, property is owned by the state. In a fascist state, property is owned by private corporations or individuals, but the economic policies are decided by the state, which then has the power to impose its will on businesses as if it owned them. The advantages of this system for the state are obvious: First, in return for being allowed to remain in business, large companies become donors to the dominant party. They also provide lucrative positions on their boards to those with influence within the party, as well as other perks. Chris Dodd's sweetheart loans and Tom Daschle's wife's employment history are obvious examples of how this works. Second, when the state's economic planning fails to improve economic conditions, instead of being held responsible, the government's bureaucrats can hold a hearing and attack the owners of the companies that followed the bureaucrats' orders, demand that they be fired and then have them replaced with their own cronies. This is what we saw with GM's CEO. Finally, the resulting policies allow government to choose winners and losers among competing firms, guaranteeing that those preferred companies are able to remain standing while their competitors stumble and fall, and the price for that favor is campaign contributions, graft, the aforemention no-show jobs and having huge corporate entities toe the line on government policies that have nothing to do with their bottom line (look at the various diversity advisors that now govern Human Resources departments at most large corporations, and picture the Soviet Army's parallel structure of commissars and commanders at each level). This is how Sun Microsystems was able to get the Clinton Justice Department to go after their competitor, Microsoft.

If we're going to criticize the economic policy of our government, we ought to use the right terminology. Hope, change and fascism are the watchwords of the day.

palerider
04-08-2009, 07:58 PM
If we're going to criticize the economic policy of our government, we ought to use the right terminology. Hope, change and fascism are the watchwords of the day.

Good to see that someone else recognizes fascism when they see it.

Molon Labe
04-08-2009, 08:48 PM
Fascism is what occurs after people learn that Socialism has failed. Not sure who said that.

It is collective control of resources plain and simple with the State as it's godhead. We can quibble about the details (corporations own this....the State runs that....) but it's all the same thing. It's communism, Nazism, etc....

It's a Hayek concept and it's one of the reasons why I find him brilliant. He dispelled the myth long ago that Communism/Nazism is a right/left thing. It's all of the left.


economic policies are decided by the state

business, large companies become donors to the dominant party

It may be "packaged" a bit differently under the big "O"...but I don't see much diffence from the last 15 years.

PoliCon
04-08-2009, 10:07 PM
To properly be fascist - there need to be a cult of state. With Barry - we don't have that. As always with the left we have a cult of personality. So while I will grant that we are leaning towards fascism - it's not fascism. That being said - since Nazism was not proper fascism either and was centered on a cult of personality . . . . . I think there is a closer comparison with Nazism than with proper fascism.

FeebMaster
04-08-2009, 11:17 PM
Really, when it all comes down to it, it's all the same to the guy with a boot on his neck.

I tend to agree, though. There's no point in calling a Democrat advocating socialism/fascism/communism a socialist anyway. They probably won't disagree and almost certainly won't be insulted by it.

I save the accusations of socialism for when the Republicans are in charge. They're used to being called fascists by liberals and can easily ignore it. It's definitely the era of fascism, now.

JDiddyGalt
04-09-2009, 12:51 AM
To properly be fascist - there need to be a cult of state. With Barry - we don't have that. As always with the left we have a cult of personality. So while I will grant that we are leaning towards fascism - it's not fascism. That being said - since Nazism was not proper fascism either and was centered on a cult of personality . . . . . I think there is a closer comparison with Nazism than with proper fascism.
Of course not. It was National Socialism. There are some parallels in this admin to the 1930's Germany and some to 1970's Cambodia. I predict the formation of some kind of re-education camps. I just wonder who will be substituted for the Jews of Nazi Germany or the professionals of Cambodia.

palerider
04-09-2009, 06:23 AM
. I just wonder who will be substituted for the Jews of Nazi Germany or the professionals of Cambodia.

Do you really? Christians are the logical choice. They are to blame for everything.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-09-2009, 07:05 AM
Of course not. It was National Socialism. There are some parallels in this admin to the 1930's Germany and some to 1970's Cambodia. I predict the formation of some kind of re-education camps. I just wonder who will be substituted for the Jews of Nazi Germany or the professionals of Cambodia.


We have had the liberal re-education camps for a while now - they are called public schools and colleges.

Molon Labe
04-09-2009, 09:46 AM
To properly be fascist - there need to be a cult of state. With Barry - we don't have that. As always with the left we have a cult of personality. So while I will grant that we are leaning towards fascism - it's not fascism. That being said - since Nazism was not proper fascism either and was centered on a cult of personality . . . . . I think there is a closer comparison with Nazism than with proper fascism.

The other thing is we may be "leaning", but it didn't just start January 20, 2009.

megimoo
04-09-2009, 10:09 AM
Of course not. It was National Socialism. There are some parallels in this admin to the 1930's Germany and some to 1970's Cambodia. I predict the formation of some kind of re-education camps. I just wonder who will be substituted for the Jews of Nazi Germany or the professionals of Cambodia.
Lets get those damn goofy Catholics.They won't even let the 'One' Accept his well deserved Doctorate from Notre Dame !Let's make the Catholics the 'new' Jews and go after them for a change .

PoliCon
04-09-2009, 11:47 AM
The other thing is we may be "leaning", but it didn't just start January 20, 2009.

True. It started in the 1960s with the great society.

Odysseus
04-09-2009, 12:29 PM
True. It started in the 1960s with the great society.

Actually, America flirted with fascism during the Wilson administration and the New Deal. Wilson's "War Socialism" was about as fascist as it gets, while Roosevelt's subordination of business and labor to government followed the Italian model under Mussolini.

Molon Labe
04-09-2009, 01:09 PM
Actually, America flirted with fascism during the Wilson administration and the New Deal. Wilson's "War Socialism" was about as fascist as it gets, while Roosevelt's subordination of business and labor to government followed the Italian model under Mussolini.

I was going to post that, but you've said it already.

Most of the nasty federal tendancies that lead to quasi fascim have come about from our "Crises and wars".
Most societies usually start on the road toward tyranny piecemeal....One could even point to the Civil war as another example of how hammering states rights became hip.

PoliCon
04-09-2009, 01:33 PM
Actually, America flirted with fascism during the Wilson administration and the New Deal. Wilson's "War Socialism" was about as fascist as it gets, while Roosevelt's subordination of business and labor to government followed the Italian model under Mussolini.

Good point. I don't usually think of them in terms of fascism . . . . I think of them in terms of progressivism. . . . I guess there really isn't mush by way of a difference between the two.:o

Odysseus
04-09-2009, 05:37 PM
I was going to post that, but you've said it already.

Most of the nasty federal tendancies that lead to quasi fascim have come about from our "Crises and wars".
Most societies usually start on the road toward tyranny piecemeal....One could even point to the Civil war as another example of how hammering states rights became hip.
The tendency of expanding government power happens in every republic. Macchiavelli observed it in the Italian republics of the Renaissance, and Rome provides the most obvious example of republican virtue descending into autocracy. The mechanism by which this happens is simple. Republics are far more efficient than other forms of government. They permit individuals to succeed and to amass massive amounts of wealth while trying to decentralize political power across the spectrum of citizens. The problem is that when you have ten citizens who can vote, and one of them is a millionaire, the tendency for the other nine to vote themselves benefits at the expense of the tenth is hard to overcome. It's a constant stress on a republic, and it invariably leads to the kind of demagoguery that we're seeing today, as the non-rich are bombarded with the idea that economics is a zero-sum game and that Bill Gates' fortune comes at their expense. Eventually, the demagogues carry the day and the republic gradually slips into factionalism. Once that happens, the most powerful faction, which is usually the governing class, establishes control over the other factions and rewards the ones that side with it at the expense of the ones that don't. Eventually, the losing factions gradually quit, leave or hide their wealth, and the nation declines as another nation picks up the talent and skills of those unappreciated achievers.

Good point. I don't usually think of them in terms of fascism . . . . I think of them in terms of progressivism. . . . I guess there really isn't mush by way of a difference between the two.:o
Progressives were basically fascists. Think in terms of their pet projects during the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries: Eugenics, Prohibition, Women's Suffrage, Economic Planning, Education Reform, etc., these were all ideas that required centralization of power and restructuring of our society through top-down directives, and each of them was designed to destroy the power structure that had built America and replace it with their own utopian fantasies. Eugenics was supposed to make America genetically healthier, but it was an inherently racist and genocidal doctrine. Prohibition was supposed to improve our morals through elimination of vice, but it ended up empowering criminal empires and perpetuating state power over areas of our lives that the state had never intruded upon before. Women's suffrage was supposed to make voting more equitable, but it was also part of a larger agenda, along with family planning and various changes in sexual attitudes that were meant to weaken the family as an alternative to state power. Central economic planning speaks for itself, and the education reforms of the Progressives destroyed the capacity for thought in whole generations of Americans.

ReaganForRus
04-09-2009, 06:20 PM
We have had the liberal re-education camps for a while now - they are called public schools and colleges.

CS, correct as usual.........The instruction in US History AP in my son's high school was so bad, I confronted the teacher, his guidance counselor, his class vice principal, and the school's principal, all in one meeting.

The smug, arrogant manner in which the meeting started with set the tone. When they started with the "I know more than you" attitude, I very quietly showed them a copy of my college transcript that shows over 150 university hours of undergraduate and graduate level instruction. (Hey, call me stupid....I have my undergrad in Econ and Business........I just enjoy history, particularly American History and Government.)

To make a long story shorter, I ended up teaching 2 AP US History classes and 1 Civics course. (I'm retired, and obtained my teachers certification) The results so far, my classes are well attended and challenging. What is truly telling, is that the kids are absolutely ravenous for actual history, not the propaganda that passes for textbooks today. This past week, I had a survivor of the Holocaust and a B-29 pilot teach the classes on World War II.........guess what the classes were overflowing.

The kids are even reading outside of class, "Band of Brothers","The Pacific Campaign", "Flag of our Fathers".

Kids are screaming for REAL American History.

AlmostThere
04-09-2009, 07:24 PM
In a very recent Rasmussen poll, only 53% of Americans think Capitalism is preferable to Socialism. If this is true, it doesn't matter whether we have Socialism or Fascism. We're screwed either way.

PoliCon
04-10-2009, 02:19 PM
Progressives were basically fascists. Think in terms of their pet projects during the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries: Eugenics, Prohibition, Women's Suffrage, Economic Planning, Education Reform, etc., these were all ideas that required centralization of power and restructuring of our society through top-down directives, and each of them was designed to destroy the power structure that had built America and replace it with their own utopian fantasies. Eugenics was supposed to make America genetically healthier, but it was an inherently racist and genocidal doctrine. Prohibition was supposed to improve our morals through elimination of vice, but it ended up empowering criminal empires and perpetuating state power over areas of our lives that the state had never intruded upon before. Women's suffrage was supposed to make voting more equitable, but it was also part of a larger agenda, along with family planning and various changes in sexual attitudes that were meant to weaken the family as an alternative to state power. Central economic planning speaks for itself, and the education reforms of the Progressives destroyed the capacity for thought in whole generations of Americans. I know well what they stood for and what their goals were - I just never drew the link between progressivism and fascism before. :o

PoliCon
04-10-2009, 02:22 PM
CS, correct as usual.........The instruction in US History AP in my son's high school was so bad, I confronted the teacher, his guidance counselor, his class vice principal, and the school's principal, all in one meeting.

The smug, arrogant manner in which the meeting started with set the tone. When they started with the "I know more than you" attitude, I very quietly showed them a copy of my college transcript that shows over 150 university hours of undergraduate and graduate level instruction. (Hey, call me stupid....I have my undergrad in Econ and Business........I just enjoy history, particularly American History and Government.)

To make a long story shorter, I ended up teaching 2 AP US History classes and 1 Civics course. (I'm retired, and obtained my teachers certification) The results so far, my classes are well attended and challenging. What is truly telling, is that the kids are absolutely ravenous for actual history, not the propaganda that passes for textbooks today. This past week, I had a survivor of the Holocaust and a B-29 pilot teach the classes on World War II.........guess what the classes were overflowing.

The kids are even reading outside of class, "Band of Brothers","The Pacific Campaign", "Flag of our Fathers".

Kids are screaming for REAL American History.You're damn lucky. I had an administration come to me and tell me that if I did not stop using outside material and primary source documents to teach the class and start using the bullshit text books - even after I went through and showed them dozens of factual errors in the text - that my services would not be retained. Needless to say - I'm not working at that school any more. I didn't have tenure to protect me.

Molon Labe
04-10-2009, 02:39 PM
You're damn lucky. I had an administration come to me and tell me that if I did not stop using outside material and primary source documents to teach the class and start using the bullshit text books - even after I went through and showed them dozens of factual errors in the text - that my services would not be retained. Needless to say - I'm not working at that school any more. I didn't have tenure to protect me.

I worked in the system for only a few years and left for similar reasons. I have often thought of returning, now that I'm older and know how to hold my own, but I also know that I would be overwhelmed with the red tape. It's now more important to indoctrinate than educate. It's not just a left right thing either.

Google or You Tube "Peg Luksik". And if you have about an hour watch her Pennsylvania town meeting series she gave in the early 90's called "Who controls the Children". She spells out EXACTLY what has been happening for the last quarter century.

PoliCon
04-10-2009, 03:15 PM
I worked in the system for only a few years and left for similar reasons. I have often thought of returning, now that I'm older and know how to hold my own, but I also know that I would be overwhelmed with the red tape. It's now more important to indoctrinate than educate. It's not just a left right thing either.

Google or You Tube "Peg Luksik". And if you have about an hour watch her Pennsylvania town meeting series she gave in the early 90's called "Who controls the Children". She spells out EXACTLY what has been happening for the last quarter century.


:) I voted for Peg.