Who are the Fascists?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


So, then just because they were the founding fathers everything they did or say was right?... You do know some of them wanted the rich to be in control of the government right?... Maybe we should keep slaves too right?...

Originally posted by ANOK


They are not both authoritarian. This keeps getting confused because of countries like the USSR being called communist when they weren't. Communism is not a form of government.
...

The only confused,brainwashed people are those like you... Yes the U.S.S.R., North Korea, China, Cuba, and some others were/are communists... They were/are also socialists...

No matter how many times you try to deny it the truth says the opposite to what you claim...

Leftwing ideologies want less government?... You are so out of tune with reality that i don't know whether to laugh, or pity you for your gross ignorance of the facts that are staring you right at your face...

Originally posted by metodex

I wasn't talking to you.I didn't actually "reply" to anybody.My message was directed to those confused.

And my message was directed to you. Mussolini was a fascist and a socialist, HItler was a fascist and a socialist, however they were both nationalists, wanting socialism only for their nation. I proved with evidence that so called "fascist dictators" such as Hitler and Mussolini were leftwing, and very much socialists. I even posted what they said/wrote, including the fascist manifesto which shows it to be leftwing.

MAIN FUNDERS OF THE LEFT

Here are some tie-ins to corporations that seem to be liberal left supporters.

The link has links to each name and explains who and how.

Ford Foundation
Open Society Institute
Schumann Center for Media and Democracy
Tides Foundation and Tides Center
Pew Charitable Trusts
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Council on Foundations

Aetna Foundation
Allstate Foundation
American Express Foundation
AT&T Foundation
Bank of America Foundation
Ben and Jerry's Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York

ChevronTexaco Foundation (Chevron Global Fund)
Fannie Mae Foundation
Freddie Mac Foundation
Harper’s Magazine Foundation
Ms. Foundation for Women (MFW)
New York Times Company Foundation
PBS Foundation

Playboy Foundation
Rockefeller Financial Services (RFS)
Sara Lee Foundation
Target Foundation
Verizon Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Who are the fascists? Who cares? Who are the idiots? We are! Here we sit, continuing this discussion for 19 pages on who are the fascists...(great discussion/thread) they are the ones benefiting from us bickering over the minutia of the left wing and the right wing. Is it communism? Or is it fascism? This is what TPTB prefer us doing, instead of looking at the real issues, they want us buried up to our arses in matters that don't matter. Regardless of what its called, they are all screwing us over. There are no pure forms of anything as long as personal agendas are the driving force behind our politicians. They don't care about you and me. There are elements of each and every political view point in our govt.

The United States is largely a socialist state. I don't see how anyone can argue to the contrary. And while there is a large fascist element to our govt, I believe we lack the overall unity and national sense of identify. I think everyone agrees that we lack a central strong figure, such as a supreme leader; I don't believe the POTUS qualifies as a supreme leader; although several presidents have made some unilateral decisions that could be considered fascist-like.

Anyways, this has been an interesting and challenging thread. S&F. But let it not distract us from the BS that All Politicians regardless of party or identity affiliation try to fool us with. There are many of who are well-versed on this subject, much more than I. There are also a lot of interpretations and opinions. I can't stress enough not getting lost in the etymology of concept.

Yes, you also need to be careful about making "founding fathers and "liberators" a myth figure. They were also human, not gods. Example, Simon Bolivar in my country is treated as if he was a saint,a god,a "being". he was a military dictator. Not your case for America, the FF were not dictators, they had a good idea for a country but sometimes that idea goes too far on people's mind.

reply to post by Cosmic911


sorry to disagree, America is not socialist. You don't depend on the state to give you food, the state does not own the means of production,america is as capitalistic as they come.Obama has tried to create a bit of a welfare/nanny state, wich has worked for some countries,and apparently, its just a hole in America's pocket. A different formula/approach is needed for this.

. LETS STICK TO THE BASICS HERE PEOPLE,SEARCH WIKIPEDIA:

-SOCIALISM
-COMMUNISM
-FASCISM
-CAPITALISM
-LIBERALISM
-ANARCHISM

For fun, visit the "political compass" website, i dunno if i can post the link here so just google it.

Good conversation i had here, but some people are just headstrong and keep a too closed mind to accept the possibility that they can be wrong.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse



I agree, in theory,communism and socialism want less government....by letting the government own everything.What a paradox.

Russia is capitalist ( theres even a MasterCard ad in front of the kremlin, Lol Lenin is disappointed)
China is moving towards capitalism everyday, and is still very oppresive,
Cuba is a failure, a private island ran by a family.
North Korea follows Cuba, but on huge steroids,and also want to blow up the world.

there is no real communism, it is a failed theory,it promises an utopia wich never has,and never will be reached.
Move along

Originally posted by metodex

I agree, in theory,communism and socialism want less government....by letting the government own everything.What a paradox

Socialism does not have to have government. It is an economic system separate from government. It can have government, but capitalism has government also. Try capitalism without government and see what kind of mess we'd be in.

"Anarchism is stateless socialism", Mikhail Bakunin

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism by Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876

Stateless socialism? How can such a thing exist if socialism is government? How can anarchism exist if socialism is government? You're claims fail logically, let alone historically.

This was Bakunin's argument against state-socialism, and for stateless-socialism, anarchism...

"Convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality..."

"Anarchism is the no-government system of socialism." Peter Kropotkin

"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference -- the fundamental one -- between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." Anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274

Nicola Sacco

Bartolomeo Vanzetti

A system is not socialism unless the workers own the means of production, and even in a state-socialist system the people have the power because they control their own labour. The state comes secondary, as apposed to fascism where the state has the power because the state owns the means of production.

You are confused simply because the idea of the Marxist temporary state system has been incorrectly labeled socialism or communism. It isn't. The Marxist system is a temporary system, it is not communism, it is a system that is supposed to lead to communism.

Seriously you fail to understand the details, and miss the point, because what you have learned was taken out of context.

All the links are here, no excuse to remain ignorant.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Now you're just fighting an argument I didn't make.

I'm not sure you can get from me saying that there's no one exact interpretation of the US constitution, even amongst the founding fathers, after it was written

TO

I think everything the Founding Fathers said is true.

You can't.

The reality is, you have no argument against my position, and have repeatedly deflected it, as to avoid answering it...

It's not honest.

Originally posted by metodex

I agree, in theory,communism and socialism want less government....by letting the government own everything.What a paradox.

No, in socialism/communism there is MORE government, not less...

Originally posted by metodex
Russia is capitalist ( theres even a MasterCard ad in front of the kremlin, Lol Lenin is disappointed)
China is moving towards capitalism everyday, and is still very oppresive,

Just because some people are making money doesn't make it capitalist. Tell me, how does a socialist exist in a socialist government without making money?...

Originally posted by metodex
Cuba is a failure, a private island ran by a family.
North Korea follows Cuba, but on huge steroids,and also want to blow up the world.

there is no real communism, it is a failed theory,it promises an utopia wich never has,and never will be reached.
Move along

In that you are partially wrong. Yes communism has been tried, time and again, U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and it has ALWAYS led to the same thing. Dictatorship...

socialism/communism DOES NOT PROMISES ANY UTOPIA. The problem is that those who believe it does can't see past their own noses...

When you give up individual freedoms for "the good of all" you are giving away the freedom OF EVERYONE...

When there is a "constant revolution" because for peace to exist "there must be an absence of oposition to socialism/communism". It means you must quench all oposition by force...

Hence in socialism/communism you ALWAYS get a socialist dictatorship...

It should be really easy for anyone intelligent enough to realize this would ALWAYS be the path of any socialist/communist system.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Now you're just fighting an argument I didn't make.

I'm not sure you can get from me saying that there's no one exact interpretation of the US constitution, even amongst the founding fathers, after it was written

TO

I think everything the Founding Fathers said is true.

You can't.

The reality is, you have no argument against my position, and have repeatedly deflected it, as to avoid answering it...

It's not honest.

WRONG... The founding fathers were not perfect and didn't have all the answers, otherwise they wouldn't have had slaves, and wouldn't have seen women as inferior. Only with time did people realize that the Constitution should protect all people, blacks, native Americans, hispanics, women etc.

I did respond your argument with truth. Some of the founding fathers wanted rich people to be in control of the government and the economy, whicle others didn't. There were things even the founding fathers were wrong about, and wanting to FORCE success to pay more taxes is wrong...

Let's say you make $30,000 a year and you pay 10% taxes, that means you pay $3,000 in taxes.
A wealtheir person makes let's say $300,000 a year. If that person were to pay the same 10% in taxes does he/she pay more or less than you in taxes?... That person would pay the same percentage as you, but pays MORE in taxes being $30,000... Why should that person pay a higher tax rate than you?...

The United States already has the HIGHEST corporate tax IN THE WORLD, which is why corporations have gone overseas, yet the left doesn't see this fact, and claim "there should be more taxes on the rich"...

I am not rich, so it wouldn't affect me, but it is just wrong wanting to put more taxes and more restrictions on the wealthy because they are wealthy... It would be similar to not wanting to give jobs to the smater, or most intelligent people on the planet just because they are smarter/more intelligent...

You want to punish people for being smarter/more intelligent as well?...

reply to post by metodex


Yes, there are numerous instances of socialism in the United States. If you read the entire post you know I said that I don't believe any system is 100% of what it claims it is. And yes, Socialism is alive and well in North America. You have no idea what you're talking about if you think President Obama is the only politician that supports dramatic social programs in the U.S. I don't lose up to 30% of my paycheck every week for no reason; much of that goes to the multiple social welfare programs we have in the U.S.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I think you need to go back and read our conversation, as youre arguing with yourself, not me.

And by arguing, I mean posting contradictory statements.

Either that or you're deliberately,and repeatedly, not responding to I've said.

It's fairly perplexing, but I understand you might just be confused as you're a.guing with a lot of people right now.

One final point, the main reason corporations move overseas is NOT corporate tax rate. In case you haven't noticed, businesses are quite good at tax avoidance; the main reason they go overseas is LABOR costs.

So.... Re-jigger your ideology around that.

In fact the Boston Consulting Group recently released a survey saying that the US might actually get businesses back from China due to, wait for it, rising Chinese labor costs. Something like 70% of the jobs lost overseas in the last decade are in clothes manufacturing. Those companies are not leaving due to taxes.

Lower taxes alone won't create business in the US, or save existing firms in meaningful numbers. Compare employment rates, percentage of people employees by sector, and corporate tax rate, for the last 30 years and you'll discover just how wrong headed this belief of yours is.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


How would you describe groups like The BNP in the UK or the Front Nationale in France. Neither group Identifies with the left and views the left as opposite enemies. The Front Nationale voters in France after coming third in the national election are very unlikely to give their votes to the socialist candidate in the 2 nd round.

Just because these right wing groups do not believe in all Capitalist principles does not make them any less right wing.

Take the EDL in the UK, started off as a movement to protest against extremist Islam, then moved to protesting all muslims in the UK, then went on to protest trade union groups and the Occupy London camp. They claim to be the new vanguard of the right in Europe. They hate the left just as much as they hate muslims. They are proud to be right wing.

Originally posted by ANOK
...
All the links are here, no excuse to remain ignorant.

And there are people who have written books claiming "the King" Elvis Presley is still alive...

Should I believe what is written in those books JUST because they were written?...

You are claiming that because some schmuck wrote a book with an idea, that idea must be true and great just because it was written...

Even in socialism there is an order while in anarchism THERE IS NO ORDER, hence you can't have both...

You want either socialism, or anarchism... You can't have order and chaos at the same time...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I am beginning to think you are a troll.

If you are being sincere, please try and be a bit more nuanced in your understanding of these systems.

Anarchy is not chaos, by definition.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Go read that, check the sources, upgrade your understanding, and then come back and use your new found knowledge to have a mature and rational conversation.

We can wait.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by metodex

 

Yes, there are numerous instances of socialism in the United States. If you read the entire post you know I said that I don't believe any system is 100% of what it claims it is. And yes, Socialism is alive and well in North America. You have no idea what you're talking about if you think President Obama is the only politician that supports dramatic social programs in the U.S.

Another misconception. Social programs is not socialism. What the government does is not socialism. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system.

If that is what you all refer to as socialism, then we are arguing two different things. The term social is the root of socialism, but not everything labeled social is socialism.

Social programs are the result of the artificial scarcity of resources caused by capitalism. In a worker controlled economy production would be increased to meet needs.

How is socialism alive and well? Where are the people working towards workers ownership? There is some socialism, as in there are some worker owned companies, but there is no socialism in government. Government supports capitalism, period.

reply to post by ANOK


Sadly, the main problem is that most people these days get their info from the largely right-wing media or from glossy infotainment channels. This allows politicians on the right to endlessly mis-label things like a corporate/private/capitalist healthcare system, designed by a republican, and the private healthcare industry, as socialist/communist.

Only in America is a system designed by a business, which forces you to pay money to a private business, seen as socialist.

Does the government own the healthcare system? No. Do the people collectively own it? No.

Now, you could argue, that government regulation of business is a form of socialism, but if you did, you'd be an idiot, or a political propagandist, trying to win votes in America's permanent election cycle.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by ANOK
...
All the links are here, no excuse to remain ignorant.

And there are people who have written books claiming "the King" Elvis Presley is still alive...

Should I believe what is written in those books JUST because they were written?...

LOL where do ideas get distributed genius? Books! How else?

These people I link to are not people claiming something ridiculous to be true, they are the left-wing thinkers who lead the workers movements.

What a childish cop-out. Not even willing to read. That has to be the most ridiculous reply to a thread anyone can make.

You on the other hand just make claims and supply nothing to support your claims. Do I give you same childish reply? No, I spend my time replying, and supply links. You could at least have the decency, and respect, to post an intelligent thought out reply. I'll just keep embarrassing you with more facts.

Your problem is you act like you know everything but you keep proving that you have not read and refuse to read anything from the 'left-wing'. If you don't do that you have no argument because you can not know what you're talking about. You are an intellectual fraud spreading untruths ignorantly. Not only are your arguments historically incorrect they are illogical if you truly understood the terms you are using so liberally.

This was the first book, the one that anarchism was based on and the term first used. Proudhon was not a schmuck. Marx became a socialist after reading this, as did many others.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (pronounced [ˈpruːd ɒn] in BrE, [pʁu dɔ̃] in French) (15 January, 1809 – 19 January, 1865) was a French economist and socialist philosopher who was the first individual to call himself an "anarchist" and is considered among the first anarchist thinkers. Proudhon is most famous for his assertion of "Property is theft!", in his missive What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government with the original title: Qu'est-ce que la propriété? Recherche sur le principe du droit et du gouvernement, which was his first major work, published in 1840...

...In his earliest works, Proudhon analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to contemporary socialists who idolized association. In series of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he declared that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". The apparent contradiction is resolved when it is realized that, in "property is theft", he was using the word to mean the type of property which created exploitative conditions. Specifically, he was referring to the means of production which labourers did not own themselves, and the system of wage labour...

...On the other hand, in asserting that property is essential for liberty, he was referring not only to the product of an individual's labor, but to the peasant or artisans home and tools of his trade. For Proudhon, the only legitimate source of property is labor. What one produces is his property and anything beyond that is not. He can be considered a libertarian socialist, since he advocated worker self-management and argued against capitalist ownership of the means of production.

eng.anarchopedia.org...