Soda for Food StampsFollow

There's a banker/pizza joke in there that is just out of my grasp at the moment.

Something about Benedict not covering up the hollandaise sauce very well.

Or it's like understanding what fascism is but, hey, I'm sure your definition works for you.

Pot meet kettle

Back to English 101:
1. You should have written Fascism is like socialism and then expounded upon that.
2. When you write a declarative statement and then spend three paragraphs explaining it, you are redirecting your audience to the original statement. The paragraphs don't make the original statement go away. They are there to reinforce it.

It's like you have a huge toolbox but don't really understand how to use the tools.

Nothing to do with my politics at all.

You contradicted yourself, I pointed it out and now you're denying your mistake...as usual.

ETA: Maybe hit the "preview" button and re-read what you wrote before you post? That might clear up any "confusion" on our part.

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 7:55pm by Bijou

Socialism contains within it the significant potential to create the kinds of authoritarian abuses that occurred in Germany in the 30s and 40s

Probably, but sort of a nonsensical argument. We understand you are of the opinion "socialism bad" but the bizarre arguments you make to justify what you've been informed you believe are starting to get pretty tired. Any system with any regulation at all has "significant potential" to become authoritarian. The rules of Ping Pong. Capitalism. English Common Law. Cake Recipes.

Apparently the US form of government not only has "significant potential" to lead to literal human slavery, but how to count the slaves relative to free people was written into the Constitution. Most of The Framers loved a little slave raping, those scamps.

Are you in favor of Anarchy? It's ok if you are. Anarchocapitalism is a stupid idea that would fail almost immediately, but it has legitimate arguments. You can respect someone with that position. What you can't respect is someone who mischaracterizes a belief system (either intentionally or out of ignorance, we'll give you the benefit of assuming it's ignorance here based on your track record) *solely* to associates it with some other belief system in an effort to attack it (comically).

So like mischaracterizing fascism *soley* to associate it with capitalism? You know, the very thing I was responding to when this whole "what is fascism" bit started? I agree completely.

I think you and I are looking at a different spectrum though.



I'm sure I've read far more on socialism and fascism and communism than you have. Instead of declaring me wrong and suggesting I go educate myself on "the truth", you provide even the most basic evidence that you understand the concepts yourself?



The "governing policy" contained a lot of economic policy as well. And how Hitler got to power was by playing on the fears of the public (btw, mostly economic), created scapegoats for those fears, and then used goon squads to force people to pick a side, with violence as the alternative to his side.



That's one of the most skewed versions of this I've read. The communists worked with the **** party because both were opposed to free markets. The fascists believed in government control of industry. The difference between them and other socialists were more about details of how to go about doing it, not in the ultimate goal.



No. It's consolidation of wealth in the hands of the government. That's what fascism is. You need to understand that when "the few" are also those the government puts in those positions and controls, it's no longer about free enterprise. The businesses are forced to go along because if they don't, their businesses will be taken from them and put into the hands of party loyalists who will play ball. The idea that anyone would confuse this for a free market capitalism is ridiculous.



Yes it is. In the form of Obamacare most recently. There are elements of fascism in a number of industries though. Do you get that when the government tells an industry "you must do things this way or you can't do business", that's not a free market?

I'll say it again: The major economic objective of socialism is to use the government to force industry to provide what the government thinks the people need rather than what the markets determine people want. That's what socialism is. Within that boundary, there are two major methods to accomplish this. Direct state operation of an industry, seizing all property and replacing the market entirely or heavy state regulation of an industry, using the fear of loss of profits and property to keep those in the industry in line. While a very surface and simplistic view of the later might make one mistake it for capitalism, it's not. The key difference is whether market forces or social policy determines the decisions being made. In Socialism it's social policy which does, and both communism and fascism share this. In Capitalism, the market forces make those decisions for us and government is only minimally involved.



Oddly, that's the closest to true thing you've said. If the Fed was operated directly by the government, you'd have a point. But one of the reasons most people rail against the Fed is precisely because it's run by "rich bankers" and not the government. Um... That's what makes it not fascism. No more than any other central banking system is. Again though, if you understood that the defining characteristic of fascism is the need for government control of industry, you'd be able to clearly see how it's not remotely similar to free market capitalism.



Sure. Be nice if you'd stop associating fascism with capitalism. On the spectrum of "who makes decisions" they are at opposite ends. And that's the spectrum that really matters here because... wait for it... that's the defining characteristic of socialism. People who praise socialism do so because the government intervenes to provide economic outcomes that the free market would not produce. That's what makes it socialism. It's still remains socialism if the same government abuses the power it has to control economic outcomes to do other horrible things as well. Just as a dog doesn't cease to be a dog when it bites someone. The problem is that socialism has a greater potential for that abuse because it requires giving the government more power over people's lives. When you give government the power to take from people unequally, you open up the possibility that the criteria used might shift from "greedy rich people" to "Jews, cause they're rich and greedy".

Governments are powerful enough without giving them yet more power over our lives.

Clear evidence you've never read a reliable history book in you life.

Try reading Berlin Diary and Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for a start.

Holy **** are you misinformed.




Do you believe the Americans massacred the Germans at Malmedy, too?

Tool.

There is no different spectrum. You seem to want to confuse Governing policy (democracy, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, fundamentalism, and so on and so forth) into it. A country can be socialist and not capitalist. A country can be fascist and not communist. There is only one spectrum to look at, its economic position. Fascism is for the consolidation of wealth. Socialism is for the distribution of wealth.



Ya and you can be a fascist communism. China is, North Korea most certainly is. You can be a socialist communism, Russia is.



Governing Policy is your nations forming of established government. Economic Policy is a position that government takes be it authoritarian, or democratic.

As for Hitler, he had no money, his party was made up of the poor workers of Germany. His money came from corporate backing, by the end of WW2 Billions passed through Germany through the ****'s, into Switzerland, and then most went to the USA. Hitler did not have the funds to be a candidate, he toed the line because he needed to be admired, his one desire. He sold out to the corporate sponsors who raped Europe for all of its wealth, and drove nearly every nation into some form of debt. Consolidation of wealth.



Hitler most certainly wanted free markets, considering he established Germany as the most economic free zone in the World at the time and was rewarded with the Olympics, Everyone else was still playing Isolationist, then again Hitler got to see a good 10 years of Germany being broke *** before the rest of the world joined in in 1929. But again your complete lack of understanding of the details shines through.

The difference between the ***** and other social movements was the investing power of rich white guys. Thats it.



Not entirely true. If the government was a few people who controlled everything, say like North Korea, then yes that would be Fascism. However over here in Canada as the Government (the people) buy more stuff for themselves collectively (say like healthcare) and need to consolidate more funds (revenue) that would be called Socialism.

You seem to confusing Capitalism and Communism again.



No that is Socialism. Your Government (the people) have decided to buy themselves some stuff collectively (healthcare) and now need to consolidate more funds (revenue).

This is the consolidation of wealth to the many, not to the few. Socialism.


As for your second question. That is called Regulation. You know like laws for companies....I mean America is a free country ya? Do you have rules?








So you can't buy health insurance in America? Wow sh*tty third world stuff if you ask me.






What kind of government. In my country (a democracy) if it breaches its trust of power, it doesn't get elected again. I guess ya in North Korea you would be right, but then again the government isn't very socialist, I mean those people starve by the thousands a day.






Whoa slow down Hitler. There are richer people than the Jews now...your fascist friends already cleaned them out in 1937.












Edited, Feb 13th 2013 1:17am by rdmcandie

Yes, I have. The communists initially opposed the fascists, but not because they were significantly different, but because they were very similar and thus competing for the same followers. When it became clear that fascism had greater support than communism in Germany, the communists were encouraged to vote for the ***** because they were closer ideologically. The belief was that as long as some form of socialism was in effect they could continue working to move towards communism, but if the country moved in the other direction it would be a blow for all of them (and for a broader socialist movement going on in Europe at the time). Of course, they got screwed in that deal, but that's part of the whole gap between those seeking power and those giving it to them concept.

You are also getting caught up in labels and missing the bigger picture. There were many different groups which called themselves socialists, communists, and fascists. There were many variations among them, and much argument about what it meant to be each of those things. They also varied based on which country you were talking about. Trying to create a single overarching platform and apply it to one label is ridiculous. It can't be done. That's why it's more useful to look at broader picture and see how the various pieces fit into it at different times and places.


The broader picture is that "socialism" is an economic agenda that desires to put government in control of the industry in order to correct for social injustice within society. It's born out of the assumption that free markets cannot ensure that everyone gets a sufficient slice of the pie. Thus socialism in all its forms is opposed to free markets. Period. That's the one defining characteristic and common point. Every other variation is just window dressing. It's differences in methodology. The underlying assumptions and goals, and the arguments used to sell them to the people are the same. You (and others) want to do the equivalent of insisting that a red plane has more in common with a red car than it does with a blue plane. You're using the wrong criteria to judge how similar one thing is to another.