It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Capitalism Isn't

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I'm not sure what you are talking about.

The fascists implemented pretty much the same system of "unionization" as the communists.

State controlled unions.

Are you going to tell me that the far right advocates state controlled unions of labor?



Are you telling me that Ley's unions were leftist?

That seems to be the crux of the argument. I don't think it was a socialist organisation. I think Ley's organistion goes a long way to prove that it is an essential part of Fascism to suppress trade unionism in function, while coopting its name. What's so socialistic about that?

If Fascism is socialist in nature, by definition it should be supportive of trade unions. The historical example of the Fascist goes to show that this is not the case; it is quite the opposite: Trade Unions are always among the first destroyed and coopted when Fascists come to power. Killing trade unions doesn't exactly qualify someone as a Socialist - allthough it does qualify one to be a Totalitarian, something both the Nazis and Commies shared, of course. But Totalitarianism is not a phenomenon of one political tradiition: it is not simply leftis nor rightist ..( a different debate, of course...) Anyone claiming something else has an agenda to demonize the other side, in my humble experience.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Ummm, by definition, yes.

The far right does not advocate state controlled unions, or any compulsory unions in general.

They advocate for the right of individual workers to strike or quit if they want to.

If all of the workers in a corporation decide to strike on their own, the right sees no problem with this. They have a problem with compulsory unionization of labor and state controlled labor unions.


f Fascism is socialist in nature, by definition it should be supportive of trade unions. The historical example of the Fascist goes to show that this is not the case;


Did you not read the doctrine of Fascism written by Mussolini I linked?

I'm not sure how you can get any more supportive than that.

Mussolini wanted a standing ministry to tend to the needs of the labor unions.

The Nazis and the Communists both implemented identical systems of state controlled labor unions.

Such unions are advocated nowhere on the right.

I've never heard a capitalist demand we have state controlled labor unions.




[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So true dude;
Because Hitler called his little band of miscreants the "National Socialist Party" -- does not mean he was in ANY way a Socialist. He could have called himself the Lollipop Guild like George Bush called a right to pollute the "Clear Skies Initiative."

And as always, we've got the Right in this country, constantly coming up with stories of Persecution and NOT noticing all the retractions after they accuse; ACORN, NAACP, Mexicans, Amnesty International, or anything to do with civil liberties, voting rights, peace and the environment movement are "out of control" -- when doctored evidence proves to be false.

The NAZIS had "With God on our Side" on their belt-buckles, and were backed by the Catholic Church. The worked with corporations to run everything. They believed in laws about behavior, and Hollywood did a great disservice to portray them as anti-religion, or that half this country wanted to be on the side of Germany and most of Wall Street. Nazis went after Unions (just like the Communists do) and burned down their own meeting all in the "Reichstaag fire" and were against everyone NOT like them. You can't get any more NOT Socialist than that.

They were Hard line, Conservative, Christian purists and anti-do gooder, anti-civil liberties, and anti-Union and anti-immigrant. They constantly propagandized their followers with tales of "persecution" and fed on the backlash of foreign and Jewish tyranny because of draconian war reparations from WW I and a feeling of betrayal by the wealthy elite in their country. Unfortunately -- THEY ended up doing the bidding of the wealthy elite while they went on their purge of Gypsies, gays, the retarded and anyone else not like them.



>> IN THIS COUNTRY, we constantly have Bill O'Reilly talking of the persecution of Christmas every December -- as if it weren't jammed down our throats and any attempt at consideration of anything NON-Christmas, is treated as an assault on religion... like the crass commercialization of Mega-Churches and

Glenn Beck is talking about the racism of the NAACP based on ANOTHER phony tape from Breibart that was pure doctored video -- and the neocon bloggers in this country are too busy posting half-truths about Mexican criminals and something bad a dark person did to them one time to notice the retraction. "Where there is smoke, there is fire" right? Only it's more heat than light. Obama, in his never ending quest to run in fear from Fox News, fired the lady on the video -- before even bothering to see if it was true.

And ACORN is getting heat to be defunded -- even though it's been proven that the Fox News undercover group doctored their video and added in voice-overs to change what they said -- and yet, this one "Pimp" video, gets a voting registration group on the verge of destruction when we've got over a few dozen incidents of military contractors committing fraud, rape, murder, and bilking the taxpayer. Blackwater, Haliburton, KBR and a whole slew of high-powered quasi criminal organizations CAN'T get fired.

The same Fox News group then bugs a Senator's office who is the head of the Congressional investigation on the Christmas "underpants" Bomber. One of the group is found to be a CIA undercover op.

I could make a list of all the bogus reporting from the usual suspects.


I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law -- it's all about MONEY. The Banks bring us this "ebb and flow" of inflation, and now it's time that the suckers get the snake eyes and clear the table -- recession is on it's way. Everything will get cheaper but you and I won't have the money sitting on the sidelines like all the mega corps and banks -- did you THINK all this money went "poof"? It's still there -- it just has better things to do than sit in our stock market, invest in people who won't get a raise or may go broke, or support a startup business.

Here is a great article spelling it out: "Returning Assets to Their Rightful Owners." -- just remember the article is about the dad of Richard Melon Scaithe -- the guy who funded so much of the Clinton witch hunt -- not that I liked Clinton, I voted for Ross Perot and we actually DID HEAR that giant sucking sound South of the border.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


Ummm, by definition, yes.

The far right does not advocate state controlled unions, or any compulsory unions in general.

They advocate for the right of individual workers to strike or quit if they want to.

If all of the workers in a corporation decide to strike on their own, the right sees no problem with this. They have a problem with compulsory unionization of labor and state controlled labor unions.





So what you are saying is that Ley presided over a trade union in the traditional sense and that his role in the Regime was to further the interest of the organized workers?

That's 100% contrary to any and all historical evidence. Again, look at what Fascist Regimes do, not at what they say, or what labels and names they use. The point you make is only valid when solely considering theory, and not the praxis of Fascists.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I'm saying that labor unions are not part of a far right ideology.

I'm saying that communists and fascists implemented nearly identical systems of state controlled labor unions.

Therefore, the fascists are acting entirely in accordance with left wing ideology that places the State above the individual.

The right does not advocate any unionization at all, and supports the right of individual workers to quit or strike should they so chose.

Both the fascists and the communists forbid strikes.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I'm saying that labor unions are not part of a far right ideology.



That's why fascists always eliminate them, probably.




I'm saying that communists and fascists implemented nearly identical systems of state controlled labor unions.



As any totalitarian state does eventually, no matter what it's name or nominal ideology. This has nothing to do with Socialism per se; trade unions are Socialist, but killing them and using their name for other golas is not.




Therefore, the fascists are acting entirely in accordance with left wing ideology that places the State above the individual.



That's a very simplistic view and I doubt that you are accurately describing the core of leftism. I think you are confusing Totalitarianism with Socialism. But that's not an equation that is supported by historic evidence.




The right does not advocate any unionization at all, and supports the right of individual workers to quit or strike should they so chose.



An individual can not strike by definition. So supporting an individuals right to strike is supporting nothing at all. One man can quit his job, a union of workers can strike by quting or refusing to do their jobs.

Unionization in traditional leftist-socialist thought is voluntary and its sole reason of existence is to further the interest of the workers it has organized.
Now if you make unionisation compulsory and force unions to cease to pursue and defend the interests of the workers you are left with something totally un-socialist, un-leftist. That is what you find in many historic examples of Totalitarian states, be they Fascist, Communist or anything else in name.

Your argument relies on the fact that unions in totalitarian states keep the name "union", while giving up their function. You say that makes totalitarianism socilaist or leftist in nature.
I say by only keeping the name and discarding the function of unions totalitarianism reveals that it is anti-leftist and anti-socialist in nature.

As Hoessler said: " If Fascists are leftist, why did they destroy the leftists and made common cause with the nationalists? "

pharaphrased of course.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


The fascists did not eliminate unions, they nationalized them.

Nationalizing trade unions is 100% in accordance with socialist doctrine.

How's that cognitive dissonance feeling?

The unpleasant feeling that you have been lied to by your left-wing leaders should be pounding in your head right now.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


The fascists did not eliminate unions, they nationalized them.



Then you better go study the history of the third reich again. The unions ceased to function as pursuers of the interests of the workers they organized the very day that they were gleichgeschaltet.




Nationalizing trade unions is 100% in accordance with socialist doctrine.



Your socialist doctrine maybe. In the rest of the world, unionization of workers remained voluntary and not state-controlled. So it is fair to say that apparantly your erring with that statement.




How's that cognitive dissonance feeling?

The unpleasant feeling that you have been lied to by your left-wing leaders should be pounding in your head right now.



Ad-homs. Very nice. Feeling superior to others - another thing Fascists and Libertarians have in common.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


I'm not denying that the labor unions under communism and fascism ceased to operate in the workers best interest. That's what happens when you have compulsory collectivization of labor.

I'm demonstrating that such unionization has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism and is a far left ideology that places the State (which it sees as the people collectively) above the individual.

The collective's needs always trump individual needs in a socialist system.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 



The collective's needs always trump individual needs in a socialist system.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]


Most socialist states that followed the quote above ceased to exist; all other socialist state are still around and prove you wrong; in most socialist states the collective's needs are narrowly confined by the rights of the individual.

I'm convinced that you're confusing "socialist" and "totalitarian" because of too much JBS :-)
I was young and Randish once too, you know. :-) Most people are at one time in their life.... mostly during puberty, it is said.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 



The collective's needs always trump individual needs in a socialist system.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]


Most socialist states that followed the quote above ceased to exist; all other socialist state are still around and prove you wrong; in most socialist states the collective's needs are narrowly confined by the rights of the individual.

I'm convinced that you're confusing "socialist" and "totalitarian" because of too much JBS :-)


Well now you are changing the definition of socialism, which is traditionally defined as state ownership of the means of production, including the labor.

Capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with unionization, collectivization, state ownership, or any other compulsory mandates.

The Nazi's and the Italian Fascists nationalized trade unions and set up a regulatory system whereby private corporations were forced into the service of the State. This is a purely socialist ideology that has nothing to do with capitalism or the far right.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 



The collective's needs always trump individual needs in a socialist system.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]


Most socialist states that followed the quote above ceased to exist; all other socialist state are still around and prove you wrong; in most socialist states the collective's needs are narrowly confined by the rights of the individual.

I'm convinced that you're confusing "socialist" and "totalitarian" because of too much JBS :-)


Well now you are changing the definition of socialism, which is traditionally defined as state ownership of the means of production, including the labor.



In continental terminology, what you describe is communism, not socialism. In this context Socialism pertains to any system that utilizes socialist ideas to promote general welfare, and under that paradigm all modern European states as well as the US are socialist to a big part. Clearly in those the state is confined and not all-powerful.

I tend to forget that this disticntion is not made in the US, where generally the fact that most socialist states are democracies is not recognizes and people can't even detect the socialist tools of their own state - or only in the panicky-alarmist rhetoric that Libertarians use.

It seems you are repeating yourself, so I'll just cut it out here. You have a very narrow view of the subject which leads me to believe that you have only looked at the debate from the Libertarian side. They tend to misrepresent and simplyfy what they pretend to be fighting against, so no wonder there. If you really want to counter Socialism intellectually I'd advise you to have a look into the origins of Socialist thought - prefferably from Socialists, not from Libertarians.

I think you are confined by your ideology in the discussion of this subject. This libertarian narrative seems very simplistic to me allthough I can agree with allot that is said.

State power and its misuse is not per se a leftist thing. To say so is to follow an ideology uncritically without checking it's validity against the historical evidence.

As an Anarcho-capitalist you should be familiar with the wide range of Socialist- inspired anarchists whose central doctrine consists of the absence of the state... To equate Socialism solely with an all-powerful state is a fallacy as it counters the historical and contemporary evidence.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Some modern day examples of socialist union doctrine:

Brazil:

www.newsocialist.org...:the-union-movement-in-brazil&catid=51:analysis&Itemid=98


The trade union movement has its origins during the government of Getulio Vargas (the middle of last century). This model of labour organization is very similar to that of Peronism in Argentina: there is a single union within each industry, union dues are compulsory, labour laws allow the state to intervene in labour organization, and rank-and-file organization such as workplace committees and/or bodies of delegates is absent.

In other words, the structure of "state unionism" assures the subordination of workers to the state. Its objective base is the legal requirement that unions be recognized as official entities by the state.


Exactly like the Nazi's.

Further we can quote Lenin directly:


If our state really wanted to exercise control in a business like and earnest fashion, if its institutions had not condemned themselves to "complete inactivity" by their servility to the capitalists, all the state would have to do would be to draw freely on the rich store of control measures which are already known and have been used in the past.
...
[such measures of control to include:]
(4) Compulsory syndication (i.e., compulsory amalgamation into associations) of industrialists, merchants and employers generally.

(5) Compulsory organisation of the population into consumers’ societies, or encouragement of such organisation, and the exercise of control over it.


Which is almost verbatim what Mussolini wrote in Doctrine of Fascism



[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Again... as your article itself says: They describe the fascist model of Unionization that has nothing to do with socialism. In those systems - in the article Brazil and Argentinia during their Authoritarian-rightist phases copied the Nazis in co-opting the structure of the trade Unions (who were socialist before being co-opted) while eliminating their traditional function.

Suppose I would create an organization that is based on Bokonism; I would make participation voluntary and the sole object of the organization would be the promotion of the well-being of all my fellow Bononists.

Now suppose that the state intervenes, kills me and all the founders, takes over the organization and changes it's objects from promoting the welfare of fellow Bokonists to promoting the power and control of the state.

Would it, in this case, be fair to speak of the organization as "Bokonist" just because the state kept the name?

It seems to me that you are implying that the answer would be yes. I couldn't disagree more.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


If you're going to claim that unionization has nothing to do with socialism, the anarcho-syndicalists would have a few bones to pick with you:


In the early 20th century, anarcho-syndicalism arose as a distinct school of thought within anarchism.[34] With greater focus on the labour movement than previous forms of anarchism, syndicalism posits radical trade unions as a potential force for revolutionary social change, replacing capitalism and the state with a new society, democratically self-managed by the workers.

Anarcho-syndicalists seek to abolish the wage system and private ownership of the means of production, which they believe lead to class divisions. Important principles include workers' solidarity, direct action (such as general strikes and workplace recuperations), and workers' self-management. This is compatible with other branches of anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalists often subscribe to anarchist communist or collectivist anarchist economic systems.[35]



No matter what type of anarcho-socialist system that is expressed, the workers must be collectivized because this is necessarily the source of ultimate "ownership" in such a system.

What the socialist-anarchists want is simply to remove the State component and leave the labor unions to run each entity as a kingdom unto themselves.


Compulsory unionization of labor is part-and-parcel of all socialist doctrine.

Even in socialist communes, if a worker refuse to work, he's kicked out of the commune.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


If you're going to claim that unionization has nothing to do with socialism,



If that's what you read, then I can't help you.


My point is.
How do you define a union?

Is a union something that calls itself a "union" or is a union only a union when it pursues the interest of the workers it has organized?

It seems you classify anything that calls itself a union as a union.

What I am saying is that it depends on the function, when it ceases to execute it's traditinial function it ceases to be socialist in nature.

and the trade unions in both Fascist Germany and Soviet Russia did not function as pursuers of the interest of its workers; rather to the contrary. So they weren't really socialist, just another extension of the state. A union is only socialist when it fullfills its function which is to promote the welfare of the workers it has organized.
There's no sense in calling Robert Ley's DAP a union or saying it was sociliast, since it existed only to promote the states power, not to function the way the socialist founders intended it too: to further the interest of the workers they organized.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


There you go changing the definition of socialism again.

Look dude, you can't go changing the definition of socialism just because it doesn't fit what you think the ideal socialist society should be.

All socialist societies, no matter what flavor of socialism you choose, have collectivized labor - all of them.

Nationalization of trade unions was advocated by Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Marx, and all the rest.

The only difference between the fascists and rest of the socialists was that the fascists let private owners of industry retain some property rights.




[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Capitalists are not lazy people.

I should get back to work.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 


There you go changing the definition of socialism again.



Perhaps the problem is that the only source you have on socialism is libertarian propaganda?




Look dude, you can't go changing the definition of socialism just because it doesn't fit what you think the ideal socialist society should be.



It's got nothing to do with what I think ideal socialist societies should be. The question is wheter a union is socialist or not; it only is socialist when it pursues the interests of the people it has organized. This is socialist doctrine; a union is an organization that pursues the interest of its organized workers. When a state crushes a union, kills its leaders, takes over control and keeps the name "union" allthough everything else is discarded (as in the Nazi case with Ley) then I fail to see what such a union has to do with Socialism.




All socialist societies, no matter what flavor of socialism you choose, have collectivized labor - all of them.



Expet for all modern European Nations, the US, Japan, and some more around the world. But who cares. These state represent implementations of Socialist thoughts and policies just as much as the totalitarian socialist societies of the 20th century like the SU or china did - minus the totalitarian part that is.

The place where I live, Switzerland, f.e. is a social democracy like most modern western states - in which Socilaism is a central tenet of policy - confined by the constiution and individuals rights.

This is just the reality; Socialism is not just what happened in the USSR. It was there long before and long after the USSR - if you fail to see the socialist nature of most modern western states then we disagree funamentally about our perception of the world.




Nationalization of trade unions was advocated by Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Marx, and all the rest.



Except for Marx "nationalization" in effect meant "eiliminization" respectively " marginalization" of the unions. All of the above quoted crushed the power of the unions and co-opted them, they did not strengthen them by "Nationalizing", they eliminated them as independent interest groups. Nationalization in this case is just a euphemism for destryoing the unions original purpose - this is not my opinion but historical fact: None of the people in your list strengthened the power of the unions - they eliminated them and made them their tools. Is that so hard to get?




The only difference between the fascists and rest of the socialists was that the fascists let private owners of industry retain some property rights.



The only?`If you say so.

So you're view really is that Robert Ley's DAP was a traditional union in the socialist sense`? Are you honestly suggesting that a doctrinal Socialist would recognize Robert Ley's organization as Socialist`? Even though thy didn't do anything for the workers? Even though the unions under Hitler were nothing more than an organization for the control of people? They did not bargain with their bosses, they did not organise strikes, they held no political discussions, they didn't vote, they didn't fight for workers rights. It was 100% antisocialist and it's very essence was the idea to co-opt and thereby supress any leftist or class-based dissident tendencies at the very root.

Or do you deny that the Nazis purged all of their leftists by 1934... If so.. care to name names?

And if the Nazis were leftist in essence, why did they eliminate the political left and middle while they invited the traditional nationalist right to share power at first?
Wouldn't leftist join with other leftists?

Honestly. Just answer this: In the case of the DAP, can you name one specific Socialist policy that they implemented? What was their function in your oppinion? Making socialist policies or following Hitlers orders to gain absoulte control of the traditional leftist-dissident element, the workers?

All else I don't care about - but do you honestly believe the DAP was Socialist as opposed to being simply a crude tool for Hitlers power`?






[edit on 23-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I think there is a lot of semantic confusion present in the discussion here, specifically over the definition of right, left, libertarian, and authoritarian. So like I suggested before PLEASE see the Political Compass for a more accurate/sensible breakdown of these terms and the ideologies within them!

EVERYBODY LOOK TO THIS GRAPHIC TO SOLVE SEMANTIC DEBATES ON THE DIFFERENCE AMONGST IDEOLOGIES!






new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join