On the one-hand, we have windbags screeching out warnings that America is destined to become Fascist!

On the other-hand, there are phrasemongers belching warnings about the inherent evils of a Socialist America.


But where do these profits of doom draw their arguments from… sewers and drainpipes no less.

My question is…what are the respective essentials that would have to change in order for these prophecies to become true?

Hello DC:

Too big a question for a simple guy like me... But, I'll give it a try.

First off - tyranny from the right or the left doesn't feel any different. Second - you ask what has to change to have these dire prophesies come true.

NOTHING!! They appear to be coming true, right smack in front of my eyes.

excon

DC,

In order for this country to become a fascist or socialist tyranny, only two things are required:

1) A complacent society that allows their rights to be abrogated for the "benefit of the nation" as defined by whoever is in power.

2) Elimination of our right to bear arms.

That's why the 2nd Amendment is an essential right to guarantee our continued freedom and to hold off tyranny from either side of the political/ideological spectrum. The people MUST be allowed to arm themselves in order to throw off tyranny when it rears its head. Only through the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, can the rest of our constitutional rights be protected from a fascist or socialist government that tries to take them from us. And only by having a society that is willing to fight against tyranny it when it is happening and armed to do so can it be prevented from taking our rights.

As often as excon and I disagree, we always agree on one point: the right to bear arms, for this very reason. He and I disagree over where the danger of tyranny is coming from. I see it coming from the left and he sees it coming (mostly) from the right. But although we disagree on most points of political ideology, we agree that an apathetic citizenry is dangerous, and that an unarmed citizenry is helpless. And we agree that these are the two key ingredients necessary for tyranny to rise in the USA.

Elliot

DC,

In order for this country to become a fascist or socialist tyrany, only two things are required:

1) A complacent society that allows their rights to be abrogated for the "benefit of the nation" as defined by whoever is in power.

2) Elimination of our right to bear arms.

That's why the 2nd Amendment is an essential right to guarantee our continued freedom and to hold off tyranny from either side of the political/ideological spectrum. The people MUST be allowed to arm themselves in order to throw off tyranny when it rears its head. Only through the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, can the rest of our constitutional rights be protected from a fascist or socialist government that tries to take them from us. And only by having a society that is willing to fight against tyranny it when it is happening and armed to do so can it be prevented from taking our rights.

As often as Excon and I disagree, we always agree on one point: the right to bear arms, for this very reason. He and I disagree over where the danger of tyranny is coming from. I see it coming from the left and he sees it coming (mostly) from the right. But although we disagree on most points of political ideology, we agree that an apathetic citizenry is dangerous, and that an unarmed citizenry is helpless. And we agree that these are the two key ingredients necessary for tyranny to rise in the USA.

Elliot
I tried to make the question as clear as possible, but apparently failed. So I’ll rephrase:

What element of Fascism would have to occur before the American government could be accurately described as Fascist?

What element of Socialism would have to occur before the American government could be accurately described as Socialist?

Hello again, DC:

Like I said, it was too big a question for me. But, I'll try again...


What element of Fascism would have to occur before the American government could be accurately described as Fascist?The main element would be the president violating the Constitution by breaking federal law. This president has done that.

It's hard to quantify where, along the continuum between democracy and fascism, we happen to be, simply because some elements of fascism have been implemented. So, I don't think we're fascist. I think we're on the road to becoming that way.


What element of Socialism would have to occur before the American government could be accurately described as Socialist?For starters, implementation of the New Deal. However, we're not headed down the road toward socialism, and I don't hear any phrasemongers. It's going the other way.

excon

The change in your question doesn't change my answer.

The elements of fascism necessary for the USA to become fascist would be the elimination of our right to bear arms and a complacent society that allows fascism to take over. At that point we become a fascist state.

The elements of socialism necessary for the USA to become socialist would be the elimination of our right to bear arms and a complacent society that allows socialism to take over. At that point we become a socialist state.

The only difference between the two is which party will be in power when it occurs.

Put another way, the political spectrum is a circle. The two furthest points on the circle are also the two closest points. Fascism and socialism are opposites in terms of political philosophy, but exactly the same in practice. There is no significant difference to the citizenry between a fascist tyranny and a socialist tyranny. From my point of view, there was no significant difference between the tyranny of Hitler, who killed millions of people in the most brutal manner possible, and the tyranny of Stalin, who killed millions of people in the most brutal manner possible. They were opposites in terms of politics, but exactly the same in practie.

So the question really is not what ingredient is necessary for a fascist tyranny to come about in the USA or what ingredient is necessary for a socialist tyranny to come about in the USA. The real question is what ingredient is necessary for TYRANNY to come about in he USA. And for that, my answer remains the same.

Elliot

Hello again, DC:

Like I said, it was too big a question for me. But, I'll try again....

The main element would be the president violating the Constitution by breaking federal law. This president has done that.

It's hard to quantify where along the continuum between democratic and fascism we happen to be, simply because some elements of fascism have been implemented. So, I don't think we're fascist. I think we're on the road to becoming that way.

For starters, implementation of the New Deal. However, we're not headed down the road toward socialism, and I don't hear any phrasemongers. It's going the other way.

excon
Ok, here’s what I think, and correct me if I’m wrong:

One essential of Socialism: Socialism is an authoritarian association: that is, each individual is assigned a position with-in the Association and the positions held by the individual best fitted to hold it—always provided that they are not required for more important work elsewhere. Socialism knows no freedom of choice in occupation; everyone does what they are told to do and to go where they are sent.

So here it is, so long as Americans are free to choose what occupation they pursue, America cannot be accurately called a Socialist country.

So there is one part, care to try the other?

So here it is, so long as Americans are free to choose what occupation they pursue, America cannot be accurately called a Socialist country..... Hello again:

I don't think America is a socialist country, but we're not as free to choose as you think. Maybe white males eminating from the upper classes have a choice, but most people don't.

Actually, if we WE'RE socialist, higher education would be available to ALL, and one COULD choose ANY occupation.


So there is one part, care to try the other?
Sure. Hit me with your best shot.

excon

The change in your question doesn't change my answer.

The elements of fascism necessary for the USA to become fascist would be the elimination of our right to bear arms and a complacent society that allows fascism to take over. At that point we become a fascist state.

The elements of socialism necessary for the USA to become socialist would be the elimination of our right to bear arms and a complacent society that allows socialism to take over. At that point we become a socialist state.

The only difference between the two is which party will be in power when it occurs.

Put another way, the political spectrum is a circle. The two furthest points on the circle are also the two closest points. Fascism and socialism are opposites in terms of political philosophy, but exactly the same in practice. There is no significant difference to the citizenry between a fascist tyranny and a socialist tyranny. From my point of view, there was no significant difference between the tyranny of Hitler, who killed millions of people in the most brutal manner possible, and the tyranny of Stalin, who killed millions of people in the most brutal manner possible. They were opposites in terms of politics, but exactly the same in practie.

So the question really is not what ingredient is necessary for a fascist tyranny to come about in the USA or what ingredient is necessary for a socialist tyranny to come about in the USA. The real question is what ingredient is necessary for TYRANNY to come about in he USA. And for that, my answer remains the same.

Elliot
The right to bear arms is not what allows us the freedoms we have, that is pure nonsense.

Hello again:

I don't think America is a socialist country, but we're not as free to choose as you think. Maybe white males eminating from the upper classes have a choice, but most people don't.

Actually, if we WE'RE socialist, higher education would be available to ALL, and one COULD choose ANY occupation.


Sure. Hit me with your best shot.

excon
Excon, all the schooling in the world cannot make somebody with significant learning difficulties in carrying out usual social functions, into a Surgeon.
Of course people are limited in what job they can reasonably seek. But that is far different than having the government determine whether you manage a plant, or become a musician.

all the schooling in the world cannot make somebody with significant learning difficulties in carrying out usual social functions, into a Surgeon.Hello again, DC:

I didn't say socialism works. It doesn't. You pointed out why. That doesn't stop dedicated socialists from trying to make it that way here. Besides, you asked about elements - not whether they worked.

Am I to assume that you think fascism works?

excon

Hello again, DC:

Pssst. Want to know why neither of them would work here? It's cause we've got guns.

excon

PS> I know you think it's because we're civilized or something... But, I think it's because we're well armed.

I was not aware that the following, was one of the basic tenets of Socialism, as expressed by Dark Crow: "Socialism knows no freedom of choice in occupation; everyone does what they are told to do and to go where they are sent." The definition of that term in Wikipedia does not seem to mention that. It does say that property, means of production, and the distribution of wealth will be controlled by society (government).

We have all seen ever increasing abuse of personal property rights by government bodies, through the power of eminent domain, and restrictive building laws in Northern CA and other locations to preserve open spaces for the rich and famous, to name a few.

This country is a representative Democracy. I reference a controversial book: The Bell Curve by Hernstein & Murray. If we accept the fact that higher IQ people are a distinct minority, and the fact that the Bill Gates' breed at a slower rate than those less endowed, their minority status will grow. The have-nots by the sheer weight of their votes will elect representatives who will insure that Bill Gates does not keep too much of his wealth "plundered" from the proletariat.

Hello again, DC:

Pssst. Wanna know why neither of them would work here? It's cause we've got guns.

excon

PS> I know you think it's because we're civilized or something.... But, I think it's because we're well armed.
You might consider the fact that we regularly, peacefully, change the government…at election times. Only the constitution and its counterpart have overlapping power.

I know England has been called Fascist, but are they really. How about Australia…is that a Fascist Government?

Only when the phrasemongers completely distort the meaning, can these countries be accurately called Fascist.

Are their citizens guaranteed the right to bear arms?

You might consider the fact that we regularly, peacefully, change the government…at election times. Only the constitution and its counterpart have overlapping power.

I know England has been called Fascist, but are they really. How about Australia…is that a Fascist Government? Are their citizens guaranteed the right to bear arms?Hello again, DC:

I don't think there IS a fascist government today. We're certainly not. You can't bear arms in England. I doubt if you can in Australia (but I dunno).

Yes, I've considered the peaceful means in which we operate. But, I'm talking about those times when it ISN'T peaceful. You assume that we don't have those times. I've been around when we did.

Ok, I suppose I should spell out what I’m talking about. Let’s take the scenario through its paces and speculate. I don’t know how the Wolverine sees it.

Ok, we’ve got a government trying to implement very unpopular policies whether they’re fascist or socialist. The populace rebels. Riots break out. The president declares marshal law and calls out the National Guard.

The question I have for you is twofold: 1) will the Guard fire on armed Americans? 2) Will the armed Americans BE the Guard.

excon

The right to bear arms is not what allows us the freedoms we have, that is pure nonsense.

Our ability to defend our rights is what allows us the freedoms we have. In EVERY SOCIETY throughout all of history where the right to bear arms was taken away, repression has ALWAYS followed. There has NEVER been an exception to this rule.

The most recent example I can give is Germany. In Germany, which until the 1930s was one of the freest countries in history, the first of Hitler's Nuremberg laws was the elimination of the right to bear arms. From that point on, the fall into tyranny was a forgone conclusion.

In China, where anybody was able to carry a sword or knife, Japan's first rule upon conquering Japan was that only Samurai were allowed to be armed. The result was terrible repression of China by Japan. (Ditto for Japan's conquest of Okinawa.)

In our own history, here in the USA, the Founding Fathers understood this fact of history to be true. They had lived through the attempt by Britain to disarm US citizens in order to maintain control of the Colonies. That is why the Constitution included the right to bear arms. The exact wording in the Constitution is:



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


What that means is that "Since the government must have an army in order to secure the nation, and since it is possible that the army might be used to suppress the people, the people must have the ability to defend themselves against the army and the govenment."

Where, exactly, do you believe that the freedoms we have come from? What keeps the government from taking them away from us? What keeps other people from taking them away from us? And if the government DID try to take them away from you by using the military to suppress the people, what would you do about it?

The one area where I agree with libertarianism is that the only rights we have as a society are the ones we are willing to defend --- by force of arms --- if necessary. The inability and unwillingness to do so is what causes totalitarianism. Hitler was voted into power, but he maintained that power through force of arms, and by making sure nobody had the ability to overthow him. He took away the guns, and the people were helpless to stop him.

Elliot

Hello again, DC:

I don't think there IS a fascist government today. We're certainly not. You can't bear arms in England. I doubt if you can in Australia (but I dunno).

Yes, I've considered the peaceful means in which we operate. But, I'm talking about those times when it ISN'T peaceful. You assume that we don't have those times. I've been around when we did.

Ok, I suppose I should spell out what I’m talking about. Let’s take the scenario through its paces and speculate. I don’t know how the Wolverine sees it.

Ok, we’ve got a government trying to implement very unpopular policies whether they’re fascist or socialist. The populace rebels. Riots break out. The president declares marshal law and calls out the National Guard.

The question I have for you is twofold: 1) will the Guard fire on armed Americans? 2) Will the armed Americans BE the Guard.

excon
I was in Watts, and at Kent. So yes, I’ve witnessed some rebellion. But in neither case was anyone attempting to replace the government.

“The question I have for you is twofold: 1) will the Guard fire on armed Americans? 2) Will the armed Americans BE the Guard.”

1) I just gave two examples, 2) no
Look …this is nonsense that an armed populace deters America from a violent over-through of government. Note the civil war.

Our ability to defend our rights is what allows us the freedoms we have. In EVERY SOCIETY throughout all of history where the right to bear arms was taken away, repression has ALWAYS followed. There has NEVER been an exception to this rule.

Elliot
Hello…England and Australia.. That is why I gave them as an example

Look …this is nonsense that an armed populace deters America from a violent over-through of government. Note the civil war.

On the other hand, look at the Revolutionary War. Armed citizens overthrew a tyranical British government.

Look at the Pre-State of Israel Irgun, Haganah and Lehi. They were groups of armed citizens that overthrew a tyranical (from their perspetive) British government, which in turn led to the UN granting them statehood.

Look at the Macabees overthrow of Ancient Greece (the Channuhah story).

Look at any tyranical government in history that has been overthrown by rebellion of an armed population. There are hundreds of cases throughout history of well armed civilian populations overthrowing tyranical governments, both of invader regimes and of the "legaly established" governments.

A well armed population may not be able to PREVENT a government from being overthrown. But they CAN OVERTHROW ONE THEMSELVES if they have to. And that is the point of the 2nd Amendment... to give them that ability. Think of it as another check-and-balance over the government: this time, instead of one branch have a check and balance over another branch, the 2nd Amendment serves as the civilian populations check and balance over the government as a whole.

Elliot

Crow as you know I put little distinction between the socialist philosophies. Fascism is just national socialism .

I'd argue we've had creeping socialism since the beginning of the last century .See 16th amendment which started as a tax on 1% of incomes above $3000 .Now we fell half the rain forest just to publish the tax code.). After a while the gvt. Did not trust the worker to cut a check themselves so they initiated the automatic withholding so workers would be deceived about how much taxes they actually pay . That was a WWII initiative that was supposed to end once the war was over . Well that worked out just fine.

How would we continue this drift ? I think we willingly let the nation pick our pockets and as more people surrender to the nanny -state our liberties erode. The big difference from other examples in history is that at least Hitler and Stalin spelled out their intentions. Our example allows the government to incrementally impose socialism on us and make it sound like they are doing us a favor.

The best example of this may be social security . Back when it was passed the workers had to "contribute " no more than 3% to a max of $3000. Now it is over 12% of income maxed out at incomes up to $90,000 ;and the talk is that unless the cap is lifted;the percentage raised;and the pay back tied to means ,then it will not be solvent by the time I retire. That is the legacy of that "entitlement"

The next big assault on us will be nationalized health care. The gvt. Has gotten some of the states to act as surrogates in this effort. States like Maryland and others compel employers to provide medical insurance for employees of large companies. Eventually these companies complain to the national gvt. That their competitive position is weakened by these polices and petition for relief . That is when the Congress will and have begun to legislate a gvt. Controlled health system into law. As the saying goes we are all "entitled " to decent health care . Who better than the gvt . To provide it.

Lastly ,as was well evident in the Chicago debate of the Democrats there will be a serious attempt to plunder the profit from successful industries with their rationalization being pure Robin Hood/Karl Marx wealth redistribution. The problem of course is that you and I know that the needy will never see a dime of it.

The problem the way I see it is that we are drifting towards socialism because the majority of Americans wish it . They won't say it that way ;they say they are "entitled " to the care that government can provide. Then they belly ache when the government proves less than efficient at delivering .

Crow as you know I put little distinction between the socialist philosophies. Fascism is just national socialism .

I'd argue we've had creeping socialism since the beginning of the last century .See 16th amendment which started as a tax on 1% of incomes above $3000 .Now we fell half the rain forest just to publish the tax code.). After a while the gvt. did not trust the worker to cut a check themselves so they initiated the automatic withholding so workers would be deceived about how much taxes they actually pay . That was a WWII initiative that was supposed to end once the war was over . Well that worked out just fine.

How would we continue this drift ? I think we willingly let the nation pick our pockets and as more people surrender to the nanny -state our liberties erode. The big difference from other examples in history is that at least Hitler and Stalin spelled out their intentions. Our example allows the government to incrementally impose socialism on us and make it sound like they are doing us a favor.

The best example of this may be social security . Back when it was passed the workers had to "contribute " no more than 3% to a max of $3000. Now it is over 12% of income maxed out at incomes up to $90,000 ;and the talk is that unless the cap is lifted;the percentage raised;and the pay back tied to means ,then it will not be solvent by the time I retire. That is the legacy of that "entitlement"

The next big assault on us will be nationalized health care. The gvt. has gotten some of the states to act as surrogates in this effort. States like Maryland and others compel employers to provide medical insurance for employees of large companies. Eventually these companies complain to the national gvt. that their competitive position is weakened by these polices and petition for relief . That is when the Congress will and have begun to legislate a gvt. controlled health system into law. As the saying goes we are all "entitled " to decent health care . Who better than the gvt . to provide it.

Lastly ,as was well evident in the Chicago debate of the Democrats there will be a serious attempt to plunder the profit from successful industries with their rationalization being pure Robin Hood/Karl Marx wealth redistribution. The problem of course is that you and I know that the needy will never see a dime of it.

The problem the way I see it is that we are drifting towards socialism because the majority of Americans wish it . They won't say it that way ;they say they are "entitled " to the care that government can provide. Then they belly ache when the government proves less than efficient at delivering .
It’s a damm mess we have here Ollie, scratching my head. Government is an inherent glutton feeding on the whims of the minorities…

There are excellent posts on the opening question.

Neither socialism or fascism promote freedom.

Freedom is only ensured by the right to weapons and to vote.
Do we really have that much power in the vote when there are only 2 major parties and they both sound alike, make promises they can't keep and offer simple minded solutions, come election time ?

Is there freedom in the tax code as others have pointed out?
Will a 6 figure earner really get the value out of soc. sec.

Is there freedom in healthcare?
The freedom NOT to have healthcare and directly negotiate a price with your doctor?
Or does that doctor have to follow all the insurance and medicare etc.. Rules.

Property rights?
Eminenet domain has been mentioned. How about property taxes?
My parents bought a house in Long Island for $ 80 k in 1972 - it is paid off, but the property taxes are more than the mortgage ever was.

First amendment rights.
The whole Imus incident exemplifies the current state.

Education:
Why no tuition tax credits or deductions or vouchers?



Just a rant , sorry.





Grace and Peace

There are excellent posts on the opening question.

Neither socialism or fascism promote freedom.

Freedom is only ensured by the right to weapons and to vote.
Do we really have that much power in the vote when there are only 2 major parties and they both sound alike, make promises they can't keep and offer simple minded solutions, come election time ?

Is there freedom in the tax code as others have pointed out?
Will a 6 figure earner really get the value out of soc. sec.?

Is there freedom in healthcare?
The freedom NOT to have healthcare and directly negotiate a price with your doctor?
Or does that doctor have to follow all the insurance and medicare etc.. rules.

Property rights?
Eminenet domain has been mentioned. How about property taxes?
My parents bought a house in Long Island for $ 80 k in 1972 - it is paid off, but the property taxes are more than the mortgage ever was.

First amendment rights.
The whole Imus incident exemplifies the current state.

Education:
Why no tuition tax credits or deductions or vouchers?

Just a rant , sorry.
Grace and Peace
We can delineate the meaning of a noun and be right, but we cannot do away with the essence. For instance: The noun Spirituality may be used many ways, but with-out its essence, the intangible, its meaning can extend itself so far from the essence that we find ourselves talking non-sense.

I don't define words, they have been defined. So far as spirit ual-ity: It is a derivative of the noun spirit. Which is an immaterial object, hence: intangible?

If one were to take notice, my question revolves around the “Essence”, and not the other properties of what constitutes socialism or fascism.

So you see, no one has accurately answered my question.
:mad: :mad:

So you see, no one has accurately answered my question.Hello again, DC:

Well, I gave it a shot, but I told you that it might be beyond me. It was. It's also beyond the Wolverine too - which gets me to wondering...

I think that's the problem. I never did take a political science course. Indeed, I'm a high school dropout. But, the Wolverine has some higher learning, and if HE doesn't get it...

I'll bet a poly sci course would sound exactly like your question. I'm willing to take another shot (yes, I have no shame), if you could "splain" it a little better.

excon

From one high-school drop-out to another…I'm not sure, that is why I ask.

Hello again, DC:

Well, I gave it a shot, but I told you that it might be beyond me. It was. It's also beyond the Wolverine too - which gets me to wondering....

I think that's the problem. I never did take a political science course. Indeed, I'm a high school dropout. But, the Wolverine has some higher learning, and if HE doesn't get it......

I'll bet a poly sci course would sound exactly like your question. I'm willing to take another shot (yes, I have no shame), if you could "splain" it a little better.

excon
To see if we can get a handle on this let's look at some fundamental characteristics of fascism, and later Socialism.

1)Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology which simply means that they are against every any other ism.

2)Nationalistic to the point that criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is decidedly an unpatriotic act at best, and treason at worst. Consistently broadcasting threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war.

3)Fascist hierarchy requires a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret group of capitalists. Those who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism are imprisoned or executed.

4)Fascism loathes the concept of equality, particularly immigrants or religious rights.

5)Fascism embraces capitalism where corporate power is absolute and workers' rights are destroyed.

6)Fascism is capitalism at war. War creates markets that otherwise would not exist. Destroys infrastructure that then requires reconstruction. Fascism then can provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

Well, what do you think?

Fascism "A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary)

Socialism "a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means or production, capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"[re:state control] (American College Dictionary).

What's the difference ? Both have roots in the left. Fascist leaders were secular and progressive with a big hatred of existing bourgeois.

This article says it better


The Left's Lust for Revolutionary Transformation
By James Lewis

"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!" was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart's desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx. Nazism was a deeply revolutionary creed, a fact that is always denied by the Left; but it's true. Hitler and his criminal gang hated the rich, the capitalists, the Jews, the Christian Churches, and "the System". They went through their Leftist phase early in life, and then went on to discover Aryan racial purity as their beau ideal. (As a swarthy Italian, Mussolini preferred to appeal to ancient Roman imperial glory).


Nazism was hatched in the same little intellectual cafes as a myriad of Leftwing ideologies, like social-democracy, anarchism, the Socialist Workers' Party, Trotskyism, Proudhonism, the lot. In the back streets of European cities you can still find the local anarchist or Leninist storefront, with old guys wearing 1900 laborer's caps and big mustaches, and fierce revolutionary posters of Lenin tacked on the walls. You can also find them in Berkeley, California.


"Everything must be different!" is the core psychology of Leftism, and has little to do with reasoned political beliefs. Most Marxists in the English Departments of America have never read Karl Marx's giant tome, Das Kapital, which parades as a work of economics and history, but is in fact a ponderous update of the Prussian philosopher Friedrich Hegel, who is even more unreadable than Marx. Instead of going to the fount of all Marxist wisdom, our academic "Marxists" have read the 1848 Communist Manisfesto and some hero-worshipping Leftist magazines. They are what Lenin, with magnificent disdain, called "vulgar Marxists" -- that is, proletarian dupes who just don't understand the deep philosophical roots of the real thing.


There are only a few ideas in Das Kapital. One is that human history is driven by class struggle between the rich and the poor, a wild oversimplification of history's rich and colorful tapestry. The other idea, borrowed from Hegel and flipped upside-down, is that the inevitable culmination of History in a state of Paradise is a material and this-worldly society, the condition of universal Communism, instead of an other-worldly condition, as Hegel predicted. Hegel believed that the Prussian State was a model of Paradise to Come. But since Marx was a "scientific" materialist, his version of history was called "dialectical materialism."


The final idea in Das Kapital is that economic profit (called "surplus value") belongs only to the workers, and not to the providers of entrepreneurial capital, nor to entrepreneurs who start and run businesses, nor to the inventors and developers who build intellectual capital all the way from Silicon Valley to Shanghai. Naturally, the radical Left gets to control what the workers produce. That's it. There's nothing else; it's a huge and ponderous rationalization of the impulse to overthrow whatever exists.


At bottom, the key political idea of Marxism is "Alles muss anders sein!" --- Everything must be different. The workers are supposed to be the revolutionary engine of Marxism, but of course they must follow the "guidance" of the Party, which is the intellectual vanguard of the proletariat --- the Party ruling elite, who are inevitably the same gang of parasites who were hatched in the same backstreet cafes in which Lenin and Hitler learned their craft. If the workers and peasants don't follow orders they must die or be sent to Siberia, as a logical matter of policy. It's all for the good of mankind. Naturally the real beneficiaries are the Leftist apparatchiks, who happily end up stealing anything the workers produce.


The craving that "Everyhing must be different!" begins in personal psychology, and then becomes articulated in political beliefs. That's why the same people can turn into anarchists or Nazis, Communists, or today, Post-Modernists, Deconstructionists, Radical Feminists, Socialists, Hillary followers, Islamo-fascists, you name it. It is why the ACLU chooses the worst criminals to defend; they secretly adore criminals, who are the ultimate rebels against society.


In teenagers the spirit of rebellion is perfectly normal, but it has its pathological extreme in what the psychiatric manual calls "oppositional personality disorder." The most psychologically acute philosopher in Western history, Friedrich Nietzche, called this oppositional personality syndrome the "reveral of values," and attributed it to Christianity (and its roots in Judaism two millennia ago). Christianity does tell us that "the poor shall inherit the earth," but like any other two-millenium religious phenomenon, it also includes far, far more than that. The wish that Everything must be different! Is not limited to any faith or race, but is part of the human condition, to one degree or another. It's a normal part of growing up for most people.


But in some people it goes to murderous extremes -- such as the young Adolf Schickelgruber in Vienna, or the exiled Vladimir Ilyich Lenin not far away in Zurich. A young Cambodian named Pol Pot learned his version of Everything must be different! In Jean-Paul Sartre's Paris, was recruited as a promising candidate by the Soviet KGB, and then went back to Cambodia to kill three million people -- to create Paradise on Earth back home. Again. It's a predictable career path on the Left. Hugo Chavez today may follow the same logic as his model Fidel Castro.


What most conservatives don't understand is that the Left has reincarnated itself since the Soviet Union died. Conservatives think that obviously false beliefs should change; but that's not the way it works. Oppositional psychology is still at the core of the Left, and the mere crashing of the Soviet Empire and Maoist China hasn't changed a thing. The human condition is not that susceptible to reason or evidence. Oppositional personality just mutates and breaks out in other ways, like some insidious virus.


Marx thought that class struggle was the engine of history, but "deconstructionism," postmodernism, and the like have now generalized the class struggle to include race, class and gender, plus post-colonial revenge against the West, anti-rationalism, anti-scientific and anti-technology hatred, multiculturalism, militant Gays, transsexual gender benders, radical feminism, Afrocentrism, anti-Americanism, "man-boy lovers," the cultural assault against the traditional family, anti-Zionism, militant atheism, and all the other rabble-rousing "isms" of the Left. The key to all these movements is just one basic craving, that Everything must be different!


Inside the Left there is always a huge civil war, because Leftists fiercely compete with each other to be "more radical than thou." It's a big ego game. The wildest radical argument tends to get the biggest applause, so that the Left as a whole always edges closer and closer to the totalitarian extreme. At the heart of every fervent liberal is Uncle Joe Stalin, because "ordinary people" will never do what they are supposed to do. They don't follow orders from the Enlightened.


As a result of the competition to be more and more radical, things get so weird that the Left must always exercise censorship to shut out critical voices. Stalin decided what the science of genetics would be in the Soviet Union, leading to yet more disastrous harvest seasons in the midst of general famine. He just knew in his Great Man's mind that new varieties of potatoes, and new human beings, could be created by environmental manipulation. Unfortunately that's not true. But during Stalin's time, that idea drove both "science" and agricultural practice in the USSR. Those ideas are so weird that they can only thrive in an environment of intimidation and censorship.


That is why we have Politically Correct censorship on America's university campuses. Too many people know they just can't submit their weird beliefs to skeptical analysis. PC censorship is the logical outcome of all those people telling skeptics and unbelievers to just shut up!


So the Marxist-Leninists hated the Anarchists, who hated the Trotskyites, who hated the Socialist Workers. In those little backstreet cafes in European cities the fights were mostly verbal, but whenever the Left took real power, the first order of business was always to kill, imprison, or forcibly convert one's enemies on the Left. This was not revolutionary madness; it was a matter of deliberate policy. Lenin's Bolsheviks killed the Russian Social Democrats, just as Hitler's SS purged the SA (which included many homosexuals), in order to purify the one true faith and centralize control.

Read the rest here
American Thinker: The Left's Lust for Revolutionary Transformation (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/the_lefts_lust_for_revolutiona.html)

This article says it better



read the rest here
American Thinker: The Left's Lust for Revolutionary Transformation (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/the_lefts_lust_for_revolutiona.html)
Tom, I think characteristic is a much superior (scientific) approach than definition.

I didn’t read much of the James Lewis article simply because at the very beginning of the first paragraph I realized he did not know the subject matter. Hitler was not opposed to big business, that is who financed his path to power. Anyone who has studied the matter knows that to him, the term capitalist was synonymous with being Jewish and he let his financers' know that.

When I look at the characteristics of what has been common to Fascism, many are common to America.

Hitler was not opposed to big business, that is who financed his path to power.

'The Collapse of the Weimar Republic 'by David Abraham (a Marxist) is one of the big reasons this view of Hitler's rise persists . It is a book full of misrepresentations . As you will see . Yes individual businessmen like Henry Ford (a confirmed anti-semite) and industrialist Fritz Thyssen did contribute to Hitler but these were the exceptions. Small businesses were more likely to support Hitler over big business.


Henry Ashby Turner in' German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler ' makes the case that Hitler's rise was promoted by German big business is greatly exaggerated . He says that Hitler's funding came from grass-roots support and that German business put their money ,at least until 1933 after Hitler had already obtained power ,to the more right winged parties like the German People's Party and the German National People's Party.

Turner did an investigation into Abraham's book and it was then that the truth came out. What he found was an over-reliance on dogmatic Marxist theories about Nazism in the book .Abraham had invented whole sentences, phrases, and sentiments in his quotations.

Abraham's weak defense was a concession that there were a number of errors due partly to the pressure of time in preparing the book, but he had not deliberately invented anything. Dr. Gerald Feldman who had originally reviewed the book favorably fro Princeton did a second investigation into the facts and found Turner was correct in his critique. He called it "a terrible, terrible distortion of the documents," and readily admitted being embarrassed by his initial recommendation.

Dr. Ulrich Nocken of the University of Dusseldorf checked the citations in the book and found 4 of 70 that were not objectionable. He published his findings in the 'German Quarterly of Social and Economic History'.Prof. Gordon A. Craig of Stanford the "dean" of American scholars of modern Germany called the errors in the book"went beyond carelessness".

I hate to make such a big deal over a single publication except that it represents a conscious misrepresentation of the facts by Marxists who have tried for years to link Hitler to right-winged and capitalist politics . It just isn't so ;at least not during Hitler's rise. His rise can be attributed instead to his popular appeal and the mismanagement and incompetence in general ,and specifically of the political and economic systems of the Weimar Republic by President Paul von Hindenburg and chancellors Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher.

Here is the Nazi Party Platform Modern History Sourcebook: The 25 Points (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html)



"We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens."

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all."

"Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery." (By this they meant people living on interest or stock dividends and so on.

"In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits."

"We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts)."

"We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries."
"We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare."

"We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality."

"We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land."

"The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession."

"The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young."

The way I read this ,the current Democrat platform is not that different

'The Collapse of the Weimar Republic 'by David Abraham (a Marxist) is one of the big reasons this view of Hitler's rise persists . It is a book full of misrepresentations . As you will see . Yes individual businessmen like Henry Ford (a confirmed anti-semite) and industrialist Fritz Thyssen did contribute to Hitler but these were the exceptions. Small businesses were more likely to support Hitler over big business.


Henry Ashby Turner in' German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler ' makes the case that Hitler's rise was promoted by German big business is greatly exagerated . He says that Hitler's funding came from grass-roots support and that German business put their money ,at least until 1933 after Hitler had already obtained power ,to the more right winged parties like the German People's Party and the German National People's Party.

Turner did an investigation into Abraham's book and it was then that the truth came out. What he found was an over-reliance on dogmatic Marxist theories about Nazism in the book .Abraham had invented whole sentences, phrases, and sentiments in his quotations.

Abraham's weak defense was a concession that there were a number of errors due partly to the pressure of time in preparing the book, but he had not deliberately invented anything. Dr. Gerald Feldman who had originally reviewed the book favorably fro Princeton did a second investigation into the facts and found Turner was correct in his critique. He called it "a terrible, terrible distortion of the documents," and readily admitted being embarrassed by his initial recommendation.

Dr. Ulrich Nocken of the University of Dusseldorf checked the citations in the book and found 4 of 70 that were not objectionable. He published his findings in the 'German Quarterly of Social and Economic History'.Prof. Gordon A. Craig of Stanford the "dean" of American scholars of modern Germany called the errors in the book"went beyond carelessness".

I hate to make such a big deal over a single publication except that it represents a conscious misrepresentation of the facts by Marxists who have tried for years to link Hitler to right-winged and capitalist politics . It just isn't so ;at least not during Hitler's rise. His rise can be attributed instead to his popular appeal and the mismanagement and incompetence in general ,and specifically of the political and economic systems of the Weimar Republic by President Paul von Hindenburg and chancellors Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher.

Here is the Nazi Party Platform Modern History Sourcebook: The 25 Points (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.html)



The way I read this ,the current Democrat platform is not that differentIt seems everyone and their mother has some story, however there were many contributing factors leading up to the rise of Fascism in Germany. Another book, which is I believe is the most authentic describing the conditions in Germany that enabled the rise of Hitler and Fascism in Germany is "Der Fuehrer" by Conrad Heiden. It's an excellent biography of Hitler that explains the conditions in Germany that enabled him to rise to power. Interestingly enough it also explains the origin and development of one of the vilest bits of propaganda ever created: "The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion”.

If not the essence, which would surprise me, then an essential characteristic is missing from your example of the Democratic Party…Pro-War, which rather describes the other Party.

P.S. Conrad Heiden fought the Nazis in the streets in the 1920s and had to emigrate from Germany

DC,

Going back to an earlier response of yours: England has not completely prohibitted ownership of guns. Ever been to a fox hunt? Or spent any time in the English countryside where sheep graze and the shepherds have to protect the sheep from wild animals? Lots of guns avialable in England. It is PUBLIC CARRY that is prohibitted. We can argue whether those rules are effective or not, or are in the public interest or not. But England does not completely prohibit ownership of guns. (I don't know about Australia. You'll have to check with the resident Aussies here for a desent response. But I would be surprised if gun ownership were completely prohibited in Australia.)

By contrast, in Nazi Germany, ownership of guns by anyone but government officials was completely prohibited. Ditto for the Soviet Union. Average citizens COULD NOT OWN GUNS AT ALL. Not in the homes, not outside the homes. Nada. If you were caught with a gun, you were shot and jailed... in that order.

So there is a very big difference between a complete prohibition on guns and strict carry laws. England has strict carry laws. But gun ownership is still permitted. And because of that, there is little (or at least less) chance of England ever becoming the nightmare fascist or socialist tyranny that we have been discussing.

Elliot

I don't understand "essence" . Are you saying unless someone has pacifist tendencies then they have the "essence" of Fascism ? I would argue that every major war that the nation was involved in during the last century was led by a Democrat ; at least initially . The Republicans tended to be the isolationists . They were of course wrong. For the most part the wars fought in the last century were worthy ones for us to engage in as they were in defense of freedom.

I don't understand "essence" . Are you saying unless someone has pacifist tendencies then they have the "essence" of Fascism ? I would argue that every major war that the nation was involved in during the last century was led by a Democrat ; at least initially . The Republicans tended to be the isolationists . They were of course wrong. For the most part the wars fought in the last century were worthy ones for us to engage in as they were in defense of freedom.
The essence of the difference between male and female is a D... ; and so it is there is an essence between every species. I simply carry than into Plato's forms.


:D

I have enjoyed reading this spirited and civil exchange of ideas. I believe that there were a number of good answers to the original question posed by DC, even though they may not have been exactly what DC was seeking. If this was an essay question in a Poli-Sci test, then all of the students would have received a failing grade. That might indicate that the instructor required the students to have telepathic powers, in order to grasp the elusive nuances of the question.

Many of the fine posts, especially by tomder55, have provided more than ample proof to dispel the notion that Fascism is Capitalism run amok. Whether the person in control of an industry is a party aparatchick or a CEO who serves at the pleasure of the Fuhrer, the end is the same.

I have enjoyed reading this spirited and civil exchange of ideas. I believe that there were a number of good answers to the original question posed by DC, even though they may not have been exactly what DC was seeking. If this was an essay question in a Poli-Sci test, then all of the students would have received a failing grade. That might indicate that the instructor required the students to have telepathic powers, in order to grasp the elusive nuances of the question.

Many of the fine posts, especially by tomder55, have provided more than ample proof to dispel the notion that Fascism is Capitalism run amok. Whether the person in control of an industry is a party aparatchick or a CEO who serves at the pleasure of the Fuhrer, the end is the same.
Glad you enjoyed the conversation. It seems to me that the essential fact of the thread is that the terms Fascism, Capitalism, and Socialism are terms that are inherently ambiguous, and any answer to the questions can only be accurately described in a relative sense.

I am though lost to the meaning of your comment, “Whether the person in control of an industry is a party aparatchick or a CEO who serves at the pleasure of the Fuhrer, the end is the same.”

I am though lost to the meaning of your comment, “Whether the person in control of an industry is a party aparatchick or a CEO who serves at the pleasure of the Fuhrer, the end is the same.”[/QUOTE]

Both Socialism and Fascism abrogate personal property rights, which are a necessary component of Capitalism. In Socialism, the state confiscates the factory from the owner; in Fascism, the state tells the "owner" how he will run his business to benefit the state.

I am though lost to the meaning of your comment, “Whether the person in control of an industry is a party aparatchick or a CEO who serves at the pleasure of the Fuhrer, the end is the same.”

Both Socialism and Fascism abrogate personal property rights, which are a necessary component of Capitalism. In Socialism, the state confiscates the factory from the owner; in Fascism, the state tells the "owner" how he will run his business to benefit the state.[/QUOTE]




Based on that element alone then it would be more accurate to say the America is a Fascist and not a Socialistic State.

Both Socialism and Fascism abrogate personal property rights, which are a necessary component of Capitalism. In Socialism, the state confiscates the factory from the owner; in Fascism, the state tells the "owner" how he will run his business to benefit the state.




Based on that element alone then it would be more accurate to say the America is a Fascist and not a Socialistic State.[/QUOTE]
As I pointed out in #21… ‘We can delineate the meaning of a noun and be right, [As we have done just done.] but we cannot do away with the essence; so that we cannot in truth say, ‘America is a Fascist State generally, yet.’ and be right… that of course is what my question is all about. The answers have I received was not because of ‘the elusive nuances of the question.’ But rather because of the delineated meaning of the Nouns that have been offered.

With all due concern for my tender and precious neck; the puropse of business in the US is ostensibly to generate a profit for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, rather than the state. The degree of government control is less ominous. I think that most rational people agree that "pure" laisez faire Capitalism would not be a good thing, and that a certain degree of government oversight is necessary to prevent misdeeds and abuse.

DC, you do manage to come up with provocative topics for dicussion. Keep up the good work.

With all due concern for my tender and precious neck; the puropse of business in the US is ostensibly to generate a profit for the benefit of the owners/shareholders, rather than the state. The degree of government control is less ominous. I think that most rational people agree that "pure" laisez faire Capitalism would not be a good thing, and that a certain degree of government oversight is necessary to prevent misdeeds and abuse.

DC, you do manage to come up with provocative topics for dicussion. Keep up the good work.
I certainly agree, “…the puropse of business in the US is ostensibly to generate a profit for the benefit of the owners/shareholders.” The payoff for Government is in the form of election, and re-election. The History of Big Business is the History of Big Government

“"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled," said Kaiser Soze in the film The Usual Suspects, "was convincing the world he didn't exist." In a similar way, big business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder). The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. Most noteworthy expansions of government power are to the liking of, and at the request of, big business.”

Big Business and Big Government (http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html)

On the one-hand, we have windbags screeching out warnings that America is destined to become Fascist!

On the other-hand, there are phrasemongers belching warnings about the inherent evils of a Socialist America.


But where do these profits of doom draw their arguments from… sewers and drainpipes no less.

My question is…what are the respective essentials that would have to change in order for these prophecies to become true?

Just me being lazy again here, DC, but could you take a minute to define both Fascism and Socialism from your own personal viewpoint?

You see, to history buffs, there is far more similarity between the two than there are differences.

BTW, are you familiar with Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)?

It doesn't take anything but fear to bring this position about. Fear of the terrorist is as good a place to start as any, what freedoms have been eroded because people fear terrorists? How do you deal with terrorists, with a heavy hand of the police state where everything is minutely scrutinised. Very soon your country will become isolationist because the cost of interbational engagement is too high, when that happens, you will be prone to dictatorship. There are no real dangers in a socialist country, unless it is that the right to rip people off will be taken away, the real danger is in heavy handed bureauracracy because both facsism and socialism are bureaucratic, legalistic regimes which can only be curbed by strong democratic government

Just me being lazy again here, DC, but could you take a minute to define both Fascism and Socialism from your own personal viewpoint?

You see, to history buffs, there is far more similarity between the two than there are differences.

BTW, are you familiar with Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law)?
Growler
Yes, I'm aware of the theory, not sure I agree but...

I purposely perused characteristics, rather than definitions as a method of analysis because better comparisons can be made.

I’ll post them again…

1)Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology which simply means that they are against every any other ism.

2)Nationalistic to the point that criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is decidedly an unpatriotic act at best, and treason at worst. Consistently broadcasting threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war.

3)Fascist hierarchy requires a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret group of capitalists. Those who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism are imprisoned or executed.

4)Fascism loathes the concept of equality, particularly immigrants or religious rights.

5)Fascism embraces capitalism where corporate power is absolute and workers' rights are destroyed.

6)Fascism is capitalism at war. War creates markets that otherwise would not exist. Destroys infrastructure that then requires reconstruction. Fascism then can provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

Well, what do you think?

it doesn't take anything but fear to bring this position about. Fear of the terrorist is as good a place to start as any, what freedoms have been eroded because people fear terrorists? How do you deal with terrorists, with a heavy hand of the police state where everything is minutely scrutinised. Very soon your country will become isolationist becuase the cost of interbational engagement is too high, when that happens, you will be prone to dictatorship. there are no real dangers in a socialist country, unless it is that the right to rip people off will be taken away, the real danger is in heavy handed bureauracracy because both facsism and socialism are bureaucratic, legalistic regimes which can only be curbed by strong democratic government
The possibility favors history.

Growler
Yes, I'm aware of the theory, not sure I agree but...

I purposely perused characteristics, rather than definitions as a method of analysis because better comparisons can be made.

I’ll post them again…

1)Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology which simply means that they are against every any other ism.

2)Nationalistic to the point that criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is decidedly an unpatriotic act at best, and treason at worst. Consistently broadcasting threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war.

3)Fascist hierarchy requires a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret group of capitalists. Those who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism are imprisoned or executed.

4)Fascism loathes the concept of equality, particularly immigrants or religious rights.

5)Fascism embraces capitalism where corporate power is absolute and workers' rights are destroyed.

6)Fascism is capitalism at war. War creates markets that otherwise would not exist. Destroys infrastructure that then requires reconstruction. Fascism then can provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

Well, what do you think?

Well, you only described your definition of Fascism, DC.

What about Socialism?

And #4 where it pertains to immigrants is the polar opposite of the Mental Midget in Chiefs stance on the issue.

Well, you only described your definition of Fascism, DC.

What about Socialism?

And #4 where it pertains to immigrants is the polar opposite of the Mental Midget in Chiefs stance on the issue.
1) Centralization of economy.

2) Land reform, collectivization of agriculture, as well as the nationalization of leading industries.

3) Publicly funded health care and education

4) Nationalistic views

Cuba is the only successful model we have of a purely socialistic government.

Cuba is the only successful model we have of a purely socialistic government.


Successful as defined in wealth being purged from all except the Castro elites (sorta like the pigs in the barn of 'Animal Farm' )

Successful as defined in wealth being purged from all except the Castro elites (sorta like the pigs in the barn of 'Animal Farm' )
I suppose you have something of substance to offer besides American propaganda?

I find it interesting that in spite of all America had done to assassinate Castro, to bankrupt its economy, to force it to Democracy; there it stands in spite of all the American aggression. And I can’t help but wonder if Cubas’ citizens dedication to their government had something to do with it.

I can’t help but wonder how better the standard of living might be if it were not for America’s embargo.

I think it telling that Cuban President Fidel Castro has challenged the American and European governments to duplicate its ability to educate and provide health professionals to serve the needs of impoverished people around the world.

In spite of the lies we have been told about Religious persecution (CAJM), exists as a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting with the revitalization of Jewish life in Cuba and to working to improve the physical and spiritual well-being of the Jews of Cuba and the new Cuban Olim to Israel.

You will note of course that Cuba just banned their boxing team from competing outside the country fro fear of defections. I have worked with plenty of Cubans who's opinion of Castro is not as kind as yours .

But I do agree that the US embargo has overgrown it's utility and does not serve our purpose. Once expats were allowed back in with all that filthy gringo $$$ the country would rapidly change. Ahh I can see it now ; posters extolling the virtues of collectivism right next to billboards from hedonistic beach front resort hotels .

Coming straight from an American propagandist ; Raul Castro in his address to Cuba at the July 26 Moncada anniversary celebrations admitted to the world that the average Cuban worker was severely underpaid... about $12 /month in his words not enough to cover necessities . He said low wages caused corruption(sorta the reverse from the typical socialist mantra) , and he called for structural changes.He also talked of the need for a larger role for private enterprise.

Anyway ;don't get me started on personal liberties there ;They are nonexistent. The difference I guess between a totalitarian state like Cuba and let's say Burma is that human rights organizations at least recognize dissidents like Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. Cuban dissidents are not given the time of day by the same groups.

You will note of course that Cuba just banned their boxing team from competing outside the country fro fear of defections. I have worked with plenty of Cubans who's opinion of Castro is not as kind as yours .

But I do agree that the US embargo has overgrown it's utility and does not serve our purpose. Once expats were allowed back in with all that filthy gringo $$$ the country would rapidly change. Ahh I can see it now ; posters extolling the virtues of collectivism right next to billboards from hedonistic beach front resort hotels .

Coming straight from an American propagandist ; Raul Castro in his address to Cuba at the July 26 Moncada anniversary celebrations admitted to the world that the average Cuban worker was severely underpaid....about $12 /month in his words not enough to cover necessities . He said low wages caused corruption(sorta the reverse from the typical socialist mantra) , and he called for structural changes.He also talked of the need for a larger role for private enterprise.

Anyway ;don't get me started on personal liberties there ;They are nonexistent. The difference I guess between a totalitarian state like Cuba and let's say Burma is that human rights organizations at least recognize dissidents like Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. Cuban dissidents are not given the time of day by the same groups.
I’ll grant you, capitalism was not compatible with Stalin’s Socialism, but it has never been incompatible with Trotsky’s; so, filthy gringo $$$ is a strawman.

Why should anyone expect that Socialism means a stagnant form of government; Democracy certainly evolves, why not Socialism? Democracies have had its dissenters and defectors, why expect none to defect from Socialistic countries.

Sure Cuba has its poor. Have you visited the filthy streets of any major city in America, where the thousands of poor have their push-carts pulled near while they sleep on a mound of urine and other filth- all the while just blocks away in posh high-rises other people are living in luxury?

How many failed Democracy’s have there been…What about the Brutality of Nazi Germany, for one.

You talk about personal liberty, what is liberty but the opportunity to steal from you. And material things like your home, as people that live in America in the late twenties and thirties what happened to their material things.

Well, you only described your definition of Fascism, DC.

What about Socialism?

And #4 where it pertains to immigrants is the polar opposite of the Mental Midget in Chiefs stance on the issue.
Better yet

Socialism is cap’atiolism with a cap on it.:D

The inherent flaw in Socialism is that it gives human nature more credit than it deserves, by assuming that mankind is inherently altruistic rather than egoistic. The concept of "from each according to his ability, and to each according to their need" is a heartwarming platitude, but does not work in the real world. The GREED factor has been much maligned in popular culture. (ie Mr. Gecko in the film Wall Street). Capitalism, with all of its many shortcomings is responsible for lifting the standard of living for most (not all) of the world's population. If you look up the poorest nations of the world, you will find that they have the least regard for private property rights, and the rule of law. Capitalism sucks, but it sucks less than the other isms.

The inherent flaw in Socialism is that it gives human nature more credit than it deserves, by assuming that mankind is inherently altruistic rather than egoistic. The concept of "from each according to his ability, and to each according to their need" is a heartwarming platitude, but does not work in the real world. The GREED factor has been much maligned in popular culture. (ie Mr. Gecko in the film Wall Street). Capitalism, with all of its many shortcomings is responsible for lifting the standard of living for most (not all) of the world's population. If you look up the poorest nations of the world, you will find that they have the least regard for private property rights, and the rule of law. Capitalism sucks, but it sucks less than the other isms.


That is a philosophy right out of Nietchze, and Schopenhauer:D

I purposely perused characteristics, rather than definitions as a method of analysis because better comparisons can be made.

I'll post them again…

1)Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology which simply means that they are against every any other ism.

2)Nationalistic to the point that criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is decidedly an unpatriotic act at best, and treason at worst. Consistently broadcasting threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war.

3)Fascist hierarchy requires a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret group of capitalists. Those who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism are imprisoned or executed.

4)Fascism loathes the concept of equality, particularly immigrants or religious rights.

5)Fascism embraces capitalism where corporate power is absolute and workers' rights are destroyed.

6)Fascism is capitalism at war. War creates markets that otherwise would not exist. Destroys infrastructure that then requires reconstruction. Fascism then can provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.

Well, what do you think?[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earlier it was said that American capitalism is more fascist then socialist but:

1] socialists are favorable to other "isms" ? Like capitalism.:)

2] Socialist exaggerate threats to gain power, just in a different manner:
- healthcare is abysmal, we need more government
- public education is in trouble is in trouble, we need more funding and are against
Vouchers and tuition tax credits
- "global warming" - auto manufacture mpg mandates etc..

Today's corporations' only allegiance is to the bottom line, not a 'nation. ' thus
Out sourcing; far from being nationalistic they want a global economy.

3] sounds more like extreme political correctness

4] if poor imigrants drive down the cost of labor, would capitalists care?

5] Most businesses know that benefits are a competitive bargaining tool for labor,
And that most workers would leave for better jobs if the current working conditions
Are so bad. So, generally speaking, it is good for the bottom line to have content
Workers.

6] Is the US getting rich off Iraq ? I thought we were going into debt for this.


Grace ad Peace

I am so glad that Nietzche and Schopenhauer agree with my take on human nature, and perhaps that of Mark Twain (read The Devil's Racetrack), perhaps the greatest philosopher that this young nation has produced. Please consider the following example of motivation: When any one of us contributes funds to a worthy charity, or gives a few bucks to a homeless person; why do we do that? It make us feel good. If it did not make us feel good, we would not do it. The bottom line is that we are all motiveted by egoism, even though that pursuit of self interest has benefits to society. If poor old Nietzche had not made that unfortunate remark about God being dead, he might not be the stuff of bumper stickers.

Ps- I am not a nihilist, just a realist.