Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

a reply to: raymundoko

Do you realize that if you continue your current logic, you would be arguing that European feudal lords were really "left wing" because they controlled their economies?

originally posted by: raymundoko
Wow, what beautiful mental gymnastics.

If the state has the right to strip an owner of a business that isn't privately owned. Don't be obtuse.

All states can do that. Don't be naive.

Surely you can easily admit you are mistaken and everything will be fine. If you wish to continue this debate it will only end with you looking like you don't know anything about evonomics.

I will admit that if you bring your personal definition of things to the table that I will be wrong.

That is what I'm pointing out.

a reply to: daskakik

You said they were capitalist, but you are bringing YOUR own version of what capitalist means. When the state can nationalize your business with no monetary compensation (Thyssen) or strip you of your business (Krupp) that is NOT capitalism. You're jumping through hurdles to make a point that doesn't exist.

And no state in the can take a business. How ridiculous are you? You're in over your head with me on economics.

a reply to: Gryphon66

When discussing the centrist nature of the constitution?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: daskakik

You said they were capitalist, but you are bringing YOUR own version of what capitalist means. When the state can nationalize your business with no monetary compensation (Thyssen) or strip you of your business (Krupp) that is NOT capitalism. You're jumping through hurdles to make a point that doesn't exist.

And no state in the can take a business. How ridiculous are you? You're in over your head with me on economics.

As an observer of the interchange between you and Daskakik, allow me to inform you that your last statement does not reflect in any way what I see here. You sound like you're reading out of a ECON 101 textbook that you didn't quite comprehend.

You're really hung up on your own perception of yourself. It's okay to listen to other people who know what they're talking about, you know ...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

When discussing the centrist nature of the constitution?

Nope, with your insistence on your utterly simplistic "right-left economic axis."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hah, read my posts. It isn't simple at all.

originally posted by: raymundoko
You said they were capitalist, but you are bringing YOUR own version of what capitalist means.

If you say capitalism=free markets then yeah that is not what I think it means.

When the state can nationalize your business with no monetary compensation (Thyssen) or strip you of your business (Krupp) that is NOT capitalism. You're jumping through hurdles to make a point that doesn't exist.

Nah, your splitting hairs to be right. I don't know what happened behind closed doors and already admitted to that.

And no state in the can take a business. How ridiculous are you? You're in over your head with me on economics.

Sure they can. Some countries might have laws that protect against this but once a coup is in motion things do get taken.

Is this even economics?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hah, read my posts. It isn't simple at all.

Hah, it is to anyone that isn't caught up in your love for your thought processes ... i.e. "the rest of us."

originally posted by: daskakik

Is this even economics?

Nope. Not even close.

It's more like "I'm the smartest kid in the room because my momma told me so."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hah, OK. So a capitalist economy can control private corporations and strip owners of their business for disagreeing with how government thinks they should be run? If you say you agree with that your predisposition to this discussion has clouded your judgement.

It's obvious D doesn't know how an economy works from a capitalist perspective. In a capitalist society private corporations control all aspects of their business. There may be some regulation but only to prevent fraud/damage to the consumer.

a reply to: daskakik

Right, you didn't know what happened behind closed doors and when you were informed you then pulled gymnastics to say "they were still private". You could have admitted your mistake and moved on, but instead you doubled down on your rhetoric that Germany was capitalist.

Btw, if a coup happens and your business gets taken, that isn't capitalism. Your just making it worse for yourself. You were wrong, get over it. Krupp had his business taken by the government for disagreeing with their politics and was sentenced to prison. His relative, a member of the government, WA made the owner.

This was corrected after the war.

a reply to: raymundoko

Yep, you're still trying to oversimplify incredibly complex relationships into a few sentences ... by the way, that's the mark of garden-variety ignorance, for future reference.

You say the word "capitalist" for example, and you think that means one thing, one time, when whole books have been written about the most basic concepts of Capitalism ... and you want to suggest that others here don't understand economics as "you do."

Puh-leez.

Your argumentative style, such as it is, is to restate what you think others have said and then argue against that. It's painful to watch.

Your blatant oversimplification and your insistence that you and you alone understand these matters is making you look ... like something of a rube, if I may be blunt.

What's your "definition" of capitalism that you're working from, for example, perhaps we can make some headway together there.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Right, you didn't know what happened behind closed doors and when you were informed you then pulled gymnastics to say "they were still private". You could have admitted your mistake and moved on, but instead you doubled down on your rhetoric that Germany was capitalist.

The Lex Kupp was public. The owner was convicted at Nuremberg because he was responsible for what happened inside his factories.

I never said Germany was capitalist. I said that those in power acted like capitalists.

Not my fault if you can't make out the difference.

a reply to: daskakik

If you say capitalism=free markets then yeah that is not what I think it means.

AAaaaaah I just read this article and came across this one:

The idea that fascism is some variant of socialism is probably held more widely than that. For many people who equate capitalism with an idealised laissez-faire, any diminution of property rights, any regulation of economic activity, places fascism, socialism, and communism at least within the same genus.

pseudoerasmus.com...
Very good read. (And yes don't fret xuenchen, it uses both left and right wing sources).

Some snippets:

We really do live in a world in which (largely thanks to Goldberg, I think) most US conservatives now take it for granted that the Nazis were a left-wing Marxist party of some sort.

The original political programme advocated by Hitler and Mussolini was socialist, and their ramblings out of power provide a good guide to their “true” ideological leanings.
What ever their attitude to business was in practise, it was a matter of pragmatic evolution and opportunism, rather than ideological conviction.
Progressives admired Mussolini and even Hitler at the beginning.
Business activity under fascism was fundamentally state-directed, so property rights did not exist in any meaningful sense.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Precisely. (Although, those quotes have their own problems with internal consistency).

As I noted earlier, and as mOjOm and others (Yourself) have noted ... the entire basis of this "discussion" is ensconced in utter ignorance. None of these political or economic factors can be reduced to the simplistic meanings we are batting about here without losing their full meaning.

Witness the claim that capitalism can't exist alongside government regulation.

a reply to: daskakik

No, you made it clear you thought they were capitalists and when I told you they weren't you brought up Krupp while being completely ignorant of the situation. Now you're trying to back away from your statement because you realize how wrong you were.

People don't "act like capitalists" by stripping private owners of their business and dictating how people are and are not allowed to do business.

originally posted by: raymundoko
No, you made it clear you thought they were capitalists and when I told you they weren't you brought up Krupp while being completely ignorant of the situation. Now you're trying to back away from your statement because you realize how wrong you were.

Actually, no.

Exact words:

Which means that you pointing out that a group "called" themselves socialist or communist is meaningless when they ended up acting like capitalists.

My reply to your examples about german companies didn't come from this but from DJW001's post about german companies who profited during WWII.

You just kneejerked is all.

ETA: And in the Krupp deal what family member was taken out of the company? All I am seeing is that Gustav Krupp ran it from 1909 to 1941 and then his son took over.

a reply to: daskakik

And they did NOT end up acting like capitalists. What aren't you getting? You have a massive misunderstanding of capitalist economics if you think they did.

Bertha. It was stripped from her and given to her son on the grounds he operate it as directed by the government.

originally posted by: raymundoko
And they did NOT end up acting like capitalists. What aren't you getting? You have a massive misunderstanding of capitalist economics if you think they did.

I didn't use it in the "capitalist economical system" of your economic text books, that you are trying so hard to impose.

I'm using it in the layman way of saying, those guys where in it for themselves and acted that way.

ETA: The real funny part, looking back at my original post, is that it wasn't even referring to Germany. It was a response to the OP about Pinochet.