I am going to have to deal with both of you at the same time now because this denial is getting frustrating. I trust you know what the Guadian is, yes?
Well here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
This contains proof that many corporations FUNDED Hitlers rise to power so they could reap the rewards of Fascism as a corporation and also that George W. Bush's grandfather was helping the Nazis too, now if you know anything about George W. Bush's grandfather you know that he, and many other big business owners, attempted to stage a coup in America to force a fascist regime for their benefit with the help of one General Smedley Butler... however Gen. Butler wouldnt stand for it and did quite the opposite.
Good list. I applaud the clarity of your definitions.
And ironically, people criticized him for not immediately condemning the incident when It isn't his fucking job.
He is our Commander in Chief, and part of our country's face to the rest of the world.
His job is not to just wag a finger at whatever CNN says he should.
The oil leak disaster is immense, yes, but I literally sighed as hard as I can remember when people complained about his policy towards that.
People, the President is not the King of America; stop blaming him for things that aren't related to him or his job. He is not a fascist. He is not a communist. For every "evil law" he has proposed for our country, I can think of one from any previous president in my lifetime.
It shows just how immature our country is when we're still bitching about how much melanin people have/don't have in the 21st century.
Obama is as much the USA's savior as he is our first "Hitler".
This is why I hate politics. All it amounts to is a bunch of flies in suits all fighting over the same pile of bullshit.
Thank you kindly, finally... someone who isnt going to bite my head off just because I can see the flaws in capitalism and how exploitation of said flaws can lead to even more terrible events than have already happened.
Its not my fault that if there is only one class it can be called classless. Cowards and Bullies? Prove to me that they are bullies and what are all these "lies" that you keep saying they make up? The banks aren't George W. Bush, to many people place the blame on George for something that he had no control of. If you even know how the Economic Collapse started then you would be blaming the World Leaders in the 1920's(That's right events piled up and all lead to the new bank loan plans) Again you go there with ignorance and assumptions, it is not racist at all, if thats your only assumption on why I hate him you are mistaken. I choose my party from research, moral vaules and common sense. And it all comes down to that I choose what I want you need to learn to live with it or forever be ignorant
You know I have seen MANY people argue these points and I have seen people blame tons of thigns including this you are saying now, despite the fact you were JUST saying it was Obamas fault... so, yeah thats pretty much all I have to say. You should really back up your accusations of ignorance with facts rather than "Keep your nose out of it Brit!", if you are going to accuse ME of ignorance then dont provide ME with evidence of you being ignorant of your own statements. I mean come on, remembering what you just said isnt difficult and you cant just completely change your opinion and expect everyone to forget what you just said as well.
Just in case you truly cant remember what you said heres a quote: "facing poverty and lose of jobs because of obama" <You quite clearly blaming Obama.
I blamed him for the increase of poverty and job loose not the economic disaster, all these job loses could have been prevented if he actually did something. Change never came, people were given false hope. And my final point: You are ignorant, you can't stand anyone elses opinion other then your own, thats why you said in the beginning when you first quoted then tried to debate me. What you really are is a flamer a person looking for a thrill of trying to look smart and be better then someone because of your "keyboard confidence" That is why you are ignorant. And because of this maybe i should lecture brits on their own government and problems.
I blamed him for the increase of poverty and job loose not the economic disaster, all these job loses could have been prevented if he actually did something. Change never came, people were given false hope. And my final point: You are ignorant, you can't stand anyone elses opinion other then your own, thats why you said in the beginning when you first quoted then tried to debate me. What you really are is a flamer a person looking for a thrill of trying to look smart and be better then someone because of your "keyboard confidence" That is why you are ignorant. And because of this maybe i should lecture brits on their own government and problems.
Yeeeeeaaah... except you arent expressing your opinion are you. You are saying quite clearly IT IS OBAMAS FAULT. No opinion there, you are saying fact this and fact that. You are making statements of fact and are now claiming I cant accept your opinions? I dont care about your opinions! You are claiming things are facts when they quite clearly arent. Also, I am not the one who went on the rampant off-topic attacks from the get go attempting to discredit my comments by saying "flamer" and "ignorant".
You have been constantly throwing crap like me being British as a reason to discredit my points, well here is my rebuttle... you clearly have a tenuous grasp of the English language so I hardly see how you are fit to make political commentary! You see, that actually has a factual basis in that you dont capitalise "I", you cant spell simple words like "loss" and make basic mistakes like "then" when you mean "than" and all of these errors have been made often enough throughout your comments to prove they arent simple typos.
The financial crisis was not Obamas fault and in a financial crisis employment drops and people get laid off... that isnt Obamas fault, he cant tell business' to hire people SO by saying that the loss of jobs and poverty is his fault then saying the financial crisis was started back in the 1920s you ARE contradicting yourself and by not even realising that you are proving you dont know what the hell you are talking about.
I am going to have to deal with both of you at the same time now because this denial is getting frustrating. I trust you know what the Guadian is, yes?
Well here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
This contains proof that many corporations FUNDED Hitlers rise to power so they could reap the rewards of Fascism as a corporation and also that George W. Bush's grandfather was helping the Nazis too, now if you know anything about George W. Bush's grandfather you know that he, and many other big business owners, attempted to stage a coup in America to force a fascist regime for their benefit with the help of one General Smedley Butler... however Gen. Butler wouldnt stand for it and did quite the opposite.
No, I am not, and it appears that you are in denial. Did you read anything I posted? That's it? That single article is far from convincing, and nowhere does it even mention capitalism! The tenants of fascism are defined by the government role in business i.e. state corporatism.
State corporatism is a process by which the state groups companies and corporations into predetermined groups that are defined by a common function. For example, all industries that produce cars, trains, and other vehicles may be grouped into a nationalized industry referred to as... oh... I dunno... "National Transportation."
At that point, the state sets all prices, wages, and has absolute control over those businesses. Sure, they technically remain in the hands of those who would normally run them, but they MUST answer to the complete authority that is the fascist state. THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM! In fact, it is the complete opposite of traditional capitalist model! Capitalism (well, regulated capitalism) relies on very limited government oversight, no government price fixing, no nationalization, and the ability to profit without having to share.
In essence, the people run the business, and the government tells them how by controlling every aspect of how they do it. There really is no such thing as 'free enterprise' under a fascist system. All industries must submit to government oversight. Period. It is completely against the concept of laissez-faire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
see 'fascist corporatism'
I would also like to point out that your word, "Anarcho-Capitalism," or whatever never once mentions fascism... Anywhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism can't be fascist in any way since it seeks to eliminate all state involvement in all businesses and economic processes! Fascism requires state involvement in business in order to be fascism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology
"There has been much debate surrounding the fascist economics, and whether they were capitalist, socialist, or something else entirely.[41] Fascists usually claimed to reject traditional forms of both capitalism and socialism. They argued that the implementation of fascist ideas into the economic sphere would represent a "third way", and they favoured corporatism and class collaboration.
Fascists believed that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists).[42]. Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the working class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view; they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). Many opponents of fascism contend that fascist economic policies were not unique as the fascists claimed, but rather fell within the bounds of existing economic systems.
Zeev Sternhell argues that fascism contained technocratic and managerial elements rooted in a national, anti-Marxist socialism, and that it sought "to adapt socialism to modern conditions".[43] Sternhell argues that fascism "never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things".[44]
Libertarian economists of the Austrian School define socialism as an statist ideology that aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, and argue that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were socialist countries.[11] Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek focus on the measures taken by the governments of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to combat the effects of the Great Depression. Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy, and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.
Hayek and von Mises saw most of these policies as being socialist, because the policies exercised what they believed to be excessive control over the means or production. However, this argument is rejected by all self-described socialists; they typically only support state interventions that are seen as promoting equality or advancing the interests of the working class. Socialists are particularly opposed to the government granting favors to big business. Socialists also view Fascism as belonging to the economic and political right because, unlike socialists, Fascists are absolutely opposed to egalitarianism and see the class system as natural and even beneficial.[45] Fascists and Nazis also believe in uploading a forms of capitalism they term "Heroic Capitalism" and "Dynamic Capitalism" by use of class collaboration and corporatism to avoid an internationalist finance version of capitalism they term "Supercapitalism". Fascists and Nazis believe "Supercapitalism" would stir class tensions which they believe would be used by Communists to bring about a Marxist state.[46] Fascists ultimately believe in a private property business system under the guidance of the State, which Hitler expressed in private by saying: ?I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative?.[47] Socialists are opposed to supporting any form of capitalism."
No, I am not, and it appears that you are in denial. Did you read anything I posted? That's it? That single article is far from convincing, and nowhere does it even mention capitalism! The tenants of fascism are defined by the government role in business i.e. state corporatism.
State corporatism is a process by which the state groups companies and corporations into predetermined groups that are defined by a common function. For example, all industries that produce cars, trains, and other vehicles may be grouped into a nationalized industry referred to as... oh... I dunno... "National Transportation."
At that point, the state sets all prices, wages, and has absolute control over those businesses. Sure, they technically remain in the hands of those who would normally run them, but they MUST answer to the complete authority that is the fascist state. THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM! In fact, it is the complete opposite of traditional capitalist model! Capitalism (well, regulated capitalism) relies on very limited government oversight, no government price fixing, no nationalization, and the ability to profit without having to share.
In essence, the people run the business, and the government tells them how by controlling every aspect of how they do it. There really is no such thing as 'free enterprise' under a fascist system. All industries must submit to government oversight. Period. It is completely against the concept of laissez-faire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
see 'fascist corporatism'
I would also like to point out that your word, "Anarcho-Capitalism," or whatever never once mentions fascism... Anywhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism can't be fascist in any way since it seeks to eliminate all state involvement in all businesses and economic processes! Fascism requires state involvement in business in order to be fascism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology
"There has been much debate surrounding the fascist economics, and whether they were capitalist, socialist, or something else entirely.[41] Fascists usually claimed to reject traditional forms of both capitalism and socialism. They argued that the implementation of fascist ideas into the economic sphere would represent a "third way", and they favoured corporatism and class collaboration.
Fascists believed that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists).[42]. Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the working class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view; they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). Many opponents of fascism contend that fascist economic policies were not unique as the fascists claimed, but rather fell within the bounds of existing economic systems.
Zeev Sternhell argues that fascism contained technocratic and managerial elements rooted in a national, anti-Marxist socialism, and that it sought "to adapt socialism to modern conditions".[43] Sternhell argues that fascism "never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things".[44]
Libertarian economists of the Austrian School define socialism as an statist ideology that aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, and argue that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were socialist countries.[11] Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek focus on the measures taken by the governments of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to combat the effects of the Great Depression. Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy, and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.
Hayek and von Mises saw most of these policies as being socialist, because the policies exercised what they believed to be excessive control over the means or production. However, this argument is rejected by all self-described socialists; they typically only support state interventions that are seen as promoting equality or advancing the interests of the working class. Socialists are particularly opposed to the government granting favors to big business. Socialists also view Fascism as belonging to the economic and political right because, unlike socialists, Fascists are absolutely opposed to egalitarianism and see the class system as natural and even beneficial.[45] Fascists and Nazis also believe in uploading a forms of capitalism they term "Heroic Capitalism" and "Dynamic Capitalism" by use of class collaboration and corporatism to avoid an internationalist finance version of capitalism they term "Supercapitalism". Fascists and Nazis believe "Supercapitalism" would stir class tensions which they believe would be used by Communists to bring about a Marxist state.[46] Fascists ultimately believe in a private property business system under the guidance of the State, which Hitler expressed in private by saying: ?I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative?.[47] Socialists are opposed to supporting any form of capitalism."
Okay, so you dont know what The Guardian is... okay, you could have just said that. And clearly you havent been following the debate me and the other guy have been having, heres an idea... go ahead and get some context on this debate before sticking your nose in like you have all the information.
If you knew what The Guardian was you would know it trumps Wikipedia, and if you followed this debate from the beginning you would know what we were talking about.
No, I am not, and it appears that you are in denial. Did you read anything I posted? That's it? That single article is far from convincing, and nowhere does it even mention capitalism! The tenants of fascism are defined by the government role in business i.e. state corporatism.
State corporatism is a process by which the state groups companies and corporations into predetermined groups that are defined by a common function. For example, all industries that produce cars, trains, and other vehicles may be grouped into a nationalized industry referred to as... oh... I dunno... "National Transportation."
At that point, the state sets all prices, wages, and has absolute control over those businesses. Sure, they technically remain in the hands of those who would normally run them, but they MUST answer to the complete authority that is the fascist state. THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM! In fact, it is the complete opposite of traditional capitalist model! Capitalism (well, regulated capitalism) relies on very limited government oversight, no government price fixing, no nationalization, and the ability to profit without having to share.
In essence, the people run the business, and the government tells them how by controlling every aspect of how they do it. There really is no such thing as 'free enterprise' under a fascist system. All industries must submit to government oversight. Period. It is completely against the concept of laissez-faire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
see 'fascist corporatism'
I would also like to point out that your word, "Anarcho-Capitalism," or whatever never once mentions fascism... Anywhere...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-Capitalism can't be fascist in any way since it seeks to eliminate all state involvement in all businesses and economic processes! Fascism requires state involvement in business in order to be fascism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology
"There has been much debate surrounding the fascist economics, and whether they were capitalist, socialist, or something else entirely.[41] Fascists usually claimed to reject traditional forms of both capitalism and socialism. They argued that the implementation of fascist ideas into the economic sphere would represent a "third way", and they favoured corporatism and class collaboration.
Fascists believed that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists).[42]. Marxists advocate solidarity between members of the working class (regardless of nation) and believe that conflict between different classes is a positive force. Fascism and Nazism hold the reverse view; they advocate solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class), and believe that conflict between different nations is a positive force. Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). Many opponents of fascism contend that fascist economic policies were not unique as the fascists claimed, but rather fell within the bounds of existing economic systems.
Zeev Sternhell argues that fascism contained technocratic and managerial elements rooted in a national, anti-Marxist socialism, and that it sought "to adapt socialism to modern conditions".[43] Sternhell argues that fascism "never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things".[44]
Libertarian economists of the Austrian School define socialism as an statist ideology that aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, and argue that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were socialist countries.[11] Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek focus on the measures taken by the governments of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to combat the effects of the Great Depression. Both countries engaged in very strong collusion between business and government, with the result that businessmen had a degree of control over state policy, and the state had a degree of control over the economy. Using this mechanism, fascists and Nazis were able to fix prices, determine the level of wages, and put up barriers to entry in important markets (so as to give their business allies the power to form oligopolies or monopolies). Fascists and Nazis placed high tariffs on imported goods, for the purpose of achieving economic self-sufficiency (autarky), which would enable them to wage war without fear of international economic sanctions.
Hayek and von Mises saw most of these policies as being socialist, because the policies exercised what they believed to be excessive control over the means or production. However, this argument is rejected by all self-described socialists; they typically only support state interventions that are seen as promoting equality or advancing the interests of the working class. Socialists are particularly opposed to the government granting favors to big business. Socialists also view Fascism as belonging to the economic and political right because, unlike socialists, Fascists are absolutely opposed to egalitarianism and see the class system as natural and even beneficial.[45] Fascists and Nazis also believe in uploading a forms of capitalism they term "Heroic Capitalism" and "Dynamic Capitalism" by use of class collaboration and corporatism to avoid an internationalist finance version of capitalism they term "Supercapitalism". Fascists and Nazis believe "Supercapitalism" would stir class tensions which they believe would be used by Communists to bring about a Marxist state.[46] Fascists ultimately believe in a private property business system under the guidance of the State, which Hitler expressed in private by saying: ?I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative?.[47] Socialists are opposed to supporting any form of capitalism."
Okay, so you dont know what The Guardian is... okay, you could have just said that. And clearly you havent been following the debate me and the other guy have been having, heres an idea... go ahead and get some context on this debate before sticking your nose in like you have all the information.
If you knew what The Guardian was you would know it trumps Wikipedia, and if you followed this debate from the beginning you would know what we were talking about.
I'm familiar with the Guardian. I would hardly say that it trumps wiki in this case as it is a rather biased news source and the self-proclaimed, "[The] world's leading liberal voice." It's definately got a leftist slant to it, and the site even admits it (google it and read the first hit).
A good source is neutral, or it is at least as neutral as possible - giving facts and both sides of an argument so it can be examined in its entirety.
so no, I would hardly call that a reliable source in this instance.
I am speaking in reference to definitions - pure and simple.
As for Wiki... It's reliable enough when it comes to political science and general definitions. It doesn't matter anyway because your source (The Guardian) doesn't even mention capitalism in relation to fascism!
And denying the facts I've posted simply because they are from wiki is still pretty ignorant. Many of them are difficult to dispute.
1. A fascist state is authoritarian
2. A fascist state corporatizes and nationalizes key industries
2a. State controls all aspects of industry (prices, wages, # of products manufactured, etc.).
I'm simply pointing out that your capitalism = fascism statements are incorrect, and fascism at its core opposes capitalist tendencies in favor of absolute state control. While there are connecitons between the two ideogies, they need not neccessarily go hand-in-hand, and haven't been all that close as far as history is concerned.
I'm familiar with the Guardian. I would hardly say that it trumps wiki in this case as it is a rather biased news source and the self-proclaimed, "[The] world's leading liberal voice." It's definately got a leftist slant to it, and the site even admits it (google it and read the first hit).
A good source is neutral, or it is at least as neutral as possible - giving facts and both sides of an argument so it can be examined in its entirety.
so no, I would hardly call that a reliable source in this instance.
I am speaking in reference to definitions - pure and simple.
As for Wiki... It's reliable enough when it comes to political science and general definitions. It doesn't matter anyway because your source (The Guardian) doesn't even mention capitalism in relation to fascism!
And denying the facts I've posted simply because they are from wiki is still pretty ignorant. Many of them are difficult to dispute.
1. A fascist state is authoritarian
2. A fascist state corporatizes and nationalizes key industries
2a. State controls all aspects of industry (prices, wages, # of products manufactured, etc.).
I'm simply pointing out that your capitalism = fascism statements are incorrect, and fascism at its core opposes capitalist tendencies in favor of absolute state control. While there are connecitons between the two ideogies, they need not neccessarily go hand-in-hand, and haven't been all that close as far as history is concerned.
No, it most certainly trumps Wikipedia. You see journalists do this thing called reporting... Wikipedia does this thing called not being properly moderated.
What? You think THATS what I have been saying? That capitalism = fascism? You really need to get the context of this debate.
EDIT: OH... and you cant really throw around "ignorant" when you dont even get the context of debates before you jump in thus posting irrelevent information based on your misconceptions of the debate.
I'm familiar with the Guardian. I would hardly say that it trumps wiki in this case as it is a rather biased news source and the self-proclaimed, "[The] world's leading liberal voice." It's definately got a leftist slant to it, and the site even admits it (google it and read the first hit).
A good source is neutral, or it is at least as neutral as possible - giving facts and both sides of an argument so it can be examined in its entirety.
so no, I would hardly call that a reliable source in this instance.
I am speaking in reference to definitions - pure and simple.
As for Wiki... It's reliable enough when it comes to political science and general definitions. It doesn't matter anyway because your source (The Guardian) doesn't even mention capitalism in relation to fascism!
And denying the facts I've posted simply because they are from wiki is still pretty ignorant. Many of them are difficult to dispute.
1. A fascist state is authoritarian
2. A fascist state corporatizes and nationalizes key industries
2a. State controls all aspects of industry (prices, wages, # of products manufactured, etc.).
I'm simply pointing out that your capitalism = fascism statements are incorrect, and fascism at its core opposes capitalist tendencies in favor of absolute state control. While there are connecitons between the two ideogies, they need not neccessarily go hand-in-hand, and haven't been all that close as far as history is concerned.
No, it most certainly trumps Wikipedia. You see journalists do this thing called reporting... Wikipedia does this thing called not being properly moderated.
What? You think THATS what I have been saying? That capitalism = fascism? You really need to get the context of this debate.
I don't think you really grasp journalism then... There is no such thing as neutral, and The Guardian certainly isn't. Reporting isn't neutral in its nature; not in the slightest, and that is due to the human element and the chosen perspective (again 'spin'). They push an agenda, idea, or ideology - just like any other political voice will.
And the second portion... Yes and no. Your post (9 tenants) doesn't quite portray capitalism correctly when compared to fascism or any other relation between the two different ideologies.(those damned insideous corporations, elite vangaurd of capitalists that prop up dictators, etc.). My point here is that I do not agree with the 9 fundamentals you have posted in their entirety and make clear distinctions between two different ideologies. I also do not agree that corporations, "LOVE," fascism - hence the contrasting between capitalism and fascism and the idea that fascism strays away from a capitalist structure.
corporatism =/= capitalism and does not neccessarily support it either!
I don't think you really grasp journalism then... There is no such thing as neutral, and The Guardian certainly isn't. Reporting isn't neutral in its nature; not in the slightest, and that is due to the human element and the chosen perspective (again 'spin'). They push an agenda, idea, or ideology - just like any other political voice will.
And the second portion... Yes and no. Your post (9 tenants) doesn't quite portray capitalism correctly when compared to fascism or any other relation between the two different ideologies.(those damned insideous corporations, elite vangaurd of capitalists that prop up dictators, etc.). My point here is that I do not agree with the 9 fundamentals you have posted in their entirety and make clear distinctions between two different ideologies. I also do not agree that corporations, "LOVE," fascism - hence the contrasting between capitalism and fascism and the idea that fascism strays away from a capitalist structure.
corporatism =/= capitalism and does not neccessarily support it either!
Yeah, I didnt say anything about neutrality... that was you. You are now arguing with points YOU brought up.
Point 6 says this: "6.Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed." - Its not saying capitalism is fascism, its not saying capitalism is evil. Its saying that Fascism can be transformed to Fascism without revolution through manipulation of the eloctoral process... so unless you think Capitalism allows the manipulation of the electoral process it is quite clearly saying Fascism is created through Capitalism through illegal means and after corporations fund the "supreme rulers" rise to power it becomes an embodiment of the worst parts of capitalism where corporations are not regulated and have absolute power over their workers who have no rights.
The Guardian article I posted proved this was true through the mention of various businesses that funded and greatly profitted through capitalism TO fascism even American companies... such companies that WANTED America to change FROM Capitalist TO Fascist... clearly those corporations dont dislike Fascism.
First off I have NOTHING against Obama because of his race, contrary to about half of those who have posted. It is a non-issue. The U.S. has been drifting towards communism in varying degrees for over 80 years now, under some administrations faster and some slower, but nearly always in that direction.
Most people don't consider Social Security a communist idea when it is a blatant income redistribution scheme, as is graduated income taxes. Universal healthcare is in the same vein and will leave the country equally broke given sufficent time. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" The cornerstone of marxist communism.
The fascist part of peoples claims deals predominantly with the gov't response(bailout) to the auto companies. Fascism is gov't controlled companies in a semi-capitalistic system. We would have been worse off in the short term to let them fail, but we'd have a much healthier economy five years down the road.
If anyone wonders why the U.S. economy is down the tubes, look up The Community Re-investment Act. I believe it was passed under Carter. Talk about unintended consequences.
Everyone needs to read "Atlas Shrugged". No really. Pleeeease.
I blamed him for the increase of poverty and job loose not the economic disaster, all these job loses could have been prevented if he actually did something. Change never came, people were given false hope. And my final point: You are ignorant, you can't stand anyone elses opinion other then your own, thats why you said in the beginning when you first quoted then tried to debate me. What you really are is a flamer a person looking for a thrill of trying to look smart and be better then someone because of your "keyboard confidence" That is why you are ignorant. And because of this maybe i should lecture brits on their own government and problems.
Yeeeeeaaah... except you arent expressing your opinion are you. You are saying quite clearly IT IS OBAMAS FAULT. No opinion there, you are saying fact this and fact that. You are making statements of fact and are now claiming I cant accept your opinions? I dont care about your opinions! You are claiming things are facts when they quite clearly arent. Also, I am not the one who went on the rampant off-topic attacks from the get go attempting to discredit my comments by saying "flamer" and "ignorant".
You have been constantly throwing crap like me being British as a reason to discredit my points, well here is my rebuttle... you clearly have a tenuous grasp of the English language so I hardly see how you are fit to make political commentary! You see, that actually has a factual basis in that you dont capitalise "I", you cant spell simple words like "loss" and make basic mistakes like "then" when you mean "than" and all of these errors have been made often enough throughout your comments to prove they arent simple typos.
The financial crisis was not Obamas fault and in a financial crisis employment drops and people get laid off... that isnt Obamas fault, he cant tell business' to hire people SO by saying that the loss of jobs and poverty is his fault then saying the financial crisis was started back in the 1920s you ARE contradicting yourself and by not even realising that you are proving you dont know what the hell you are talking about.
I do know what i'm talking about. Several things before i go. 1. You are a flamer, you commented on everyone's opinion/fact(whatever the hell you want it to be) that is against obama. 2. You clearly don't understand anything i say so I'll say it in a manner you can understand "tH3 3conom1c cR1s1s c0uLd h@v3 b33n l3ss d1sAstR0us if h3 @ctuaLLy d1d s0m3th1ng" 3. the president has the power to get up on a stand and give a speech telling the People what they can do to help the economy such as "buy and American car" "be careful when purchasing loans" or "spending money on American made supplies and goods help the economy" but did he no. 4. You started an attack against me, you were the one who started this all by saying something pretty stupid and ignoarant "Oh i can't tell if youre joking or serious" "oh because you dont agree with me i'm going to "pwn" you" 5. I don't write everything in word and then post it on here but since you are such a grammar Nazi, Ihre Hakenkreuz wird in der Mail werden in Kürze. Now goodbye because I honestly stopped caring about this pointless debate.
If I'm correct, the "communist" part refers to Obama's healthcare bill which apparently makes the USA's healthcare like most other country's, i.e. free. The fascist bit appears to be just pulled out of their arses.
Don't quote me on any of that, though.
I wonder how long until somebody quotes me just to be clever with that last line...
I do know what i'm talking about. Several things before i go. 1. You are a flamer, you commented on everyone's opinion/fact(whatever the hell you want it to be) that is against obama. 2. You clearly don't understand anything i say so I'll say it in a manner you can understand "tH3 3conom1c cR1s1s c0uLd h@v3 b33n l3ss d1sAstR0us if h3 @ctuaLLy d1d s0m3th1ng" 3. the president has the power to get up on a stand and give a speech telling the People what they can do to help the economy such as "buy and American car" "be careful when purchasing loans" or "spending money on American made supplies and goods help the economy" but did he no. 4. You started an attack against me, you were the one who started this all by saying something pretty stupid and ignoarant "Oh i can't tell if youre joking or serious" "oh because you dont agree with me i'm going to "pwn" you" 5. I don't write everything in word and then post it on here but since you are such a grammar Nazi, Ihre Hakenkreuz wird in der Mail werden in Kürze. Now goodbye because I honestly stopped caring about this pointless debate.
1. Actually, I replied to you because you are wrong and one other guy because he was wrong about fascism. That third guy replied to me, not the other way around. Nice though, trying to twist the facts to discredit me as a "flamer"... easily disputed by me though.
2. I dont use "leet" speak so keep your troll chat for 4Chan, eh? Oh and here come the quotes again "facing poverty and lose of jobs because of obama" (what you actually said) & "the economic crisis could have been less disastrous if he actually did something" (cleaning up your troll chat this is what you are now claiming)... You see, what you did was blame Obama for everything then I called you on that because it is wrong so you changed it to your 1920 story... I once again called you on that and told you how jobs and poverty are clearly directly related to the economy and if it crashes jobs are going to suffer and people are going to fall below the poverty line... you once again saw that you are wrong so you change your story ONCE AGAIN to something not even remotely close to your original statement.
3. Telling THE PEOPLE how they can help the economy after BANKERS and deregulation on the banking industry from previous administrations screwed the economy would only serve to piss people off. I know if a politician told me that I have to pay when a company screws up but when they are doing well I dont get shit I would be annoyed, to say the least, by that statement.
4. So me making sure you were being serious before I engaged you in a debate was an attack? Most people would consider that the least aggressive of the 2 things. Oh and what was your response to the non-aggressive statement of "Are you being serious?" again? Oh yeah it was "Oh how the Ignorant think they are so clever by belittling everyone else"... as I said, your very first reply was "ignorant" and "think they are so clever".
He's also a hitler and a Muslim, it's all very strange really. Him being called a Muslim is where I start to get angry though, starts to make you really wonder about some people.
Funny because him being called Hitler is the point where I laugh my arse off, explain Godwin's Law ( http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw ) and decide not to listen to them anymore.
I must admit Godwins law kinda pisses me off. I get what it's meant to do, but most of the time it's used as a don't mention the war! I swear i've seen it be used in a debate about the holocaust before. Still I like the good intentions the law has, but I always think of this:
I don't know if i can repeat myself any longer. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE CORPORATIONS BENEFITED FROM THE FASCIST REGIMES. IT IS STILL A FASCIST POLICY TO USE GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVES TO CONTROL THE PRIVATE MARKET.
And you absurd shot at W. Bush is just plain immature. We get it, everybody hates him, but he wasn't a Nazi.
I dont know how many times I have to repeat myself, NO THEY DONT. Corporations would not fund the furthering of a political ideology that is going to limit and control them! Corporations bribe... sorry "lobby" politicians to get what they want.
Oh and I was calling Bush's grandfather a Nazi sympathiser and Fascist... its called reading, do it.
EDIT: What you are claiming is regualting business' is fascist... thats what a Republican would say so idiots think stopping corporations screwing over workers and customers is fascist.
Yeah, that's the confusing thing. If you have read any of Mussolini's papers, you know that the two ideologies are two polar opposites. But they both lead to somewhat of the same circumstance. Yet they are opposite in the fact that communism (actually more socialism which is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT) is based on the people of the nation as a whole, while fascism is based on the state. Boiled down, communism is an extremely autocratic and totalitarian version of socialism, which changes it completely, while fascism is just an oligarchy wrapped up in nationalism.
Socialism and fasicsm are extremely close in practice even if they are different in purpose. Mussolini was originally a socialist and wrote for a socialist newspaper, he evntually tweaked his form of socialism into fascism while keeping many of the original socialist ideas like economic control. The only real difference is that rather than directly control the economy, fascists just order it with directives.
I guess, I don't know the history on Mussolini. But I do know that Facism is a hard subject because no one really has a concrete definition. Unlike say democracy, By the people For the people, or despotism, A duechebag who runs everything. Facism is confusing, though I wouldn't say it is extremely close to socialism. The other problem is that there are two facist states that everyone points at, which were also different. Facist Italy, and Facist Germany. Both ended up very different as Facist Germany became completely totalitarian with relations to even North Korea, while Italy was less so.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
