Left / Right Socialism/Fascism

silverharp

Apologies if this is straight out of politics 101 , but I stumbled across this the other day and thought it was a clever poke at the usefulness or not of terms like right/left or Socialism/Fascism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1EotfbBPjA

Belfast

Good video

turgon

I think the speaker makes the mistake of lumping communists and socialists into the same heap.

silverharp

turgon wrote: »

I think the speaker makes the mistake of lumping communists and socialists into the same heap.

In the 3rd segement at one point he defines socialism in economic terms as the common ownership of the means of production. In the terms he is discussing is seems reasonable to put them as the same end of the scale?

turgon

I fully agree with the point he makes though. I dont fancy wearing a Hitler t-shirt to the pub. Cheers

Belfast

turgon wrote: »

I fully agree with the point he makes though. I dont fancy wearing a Hitler t-shirt to the pub. Cheers

Some how a Hitler t-shirt just does not seem cool.

Even the Nazis do not ware it.

Kama

I think he could have just put the one line he does midway through, which says 'this is good, and this is bad', and left it at that, at least as far as socialism is concerned. I wondered if it was a joke, but his Econ/Liberty/WarPeace axes repeated it pretty promptly.

The last joke is hilarious, though...

Gully Foyle

The Traditional "left-right" division dates back from way further from the time in the 1970s when American conservatives and "libertarians" started listing than the real political division was between those who supported big, bad government and FREE MARKETS OMG111. Which has unfortunetly confused people ever since. (While "left" and "right" are totally short hand and really sophisicated political philosophy could not be easily mapped onto a spectrum, it is an odd view given history. As it would make Louis XVI to the left of many of his executioners... not to mention that modern Capitalism couldn't develop without state intervention anyway - or couldn't have developed the way it did. The Enclosure Acts, anyone?)

Also the economic distinctions between fascism and socialism he lists are very dishonest. Fascism was really a type of "Corporate Feudalism" which lofted intution over intellectualism and praised the "great man" romantic myth, which allowed. Its supporters came from the upper echelons of society; which was very different from the (European) communist parties and without the support of elite groups fascism would never have come to power in any country that it did (I'm defining fascism and nazism as the same - though I'll leave up to debate as to whether say, Horthy or even the Japanese Military Regime were "fascist" or not.) - it was a clique of Prussian/Catholic Militarists Aristocrats around President Hindenberg which put Hitler into power; In Italy it was the king who plucked Mussolini out of essential obscurity into the Prime Ministership - "conservatives" all. In all cases it was same, state power would be increased to crush power structures and institutions independent of the state, especially those of the intellectual and working classes; media, trade unions, communists (given this nazism's anti-semitism is profoundly unsurprising, as it is of modern conspiracy theorists)... to restore order. Class conflict was averted by large hierarchial corporate structures designed to protect the elite group and yet give enough social welfare and protection to prevent further violence and thus foster an organic holistic society - in the fascist imagination.

As for socialism, well, that remained more theory than practice. After WWII there was no desire to repeat the Great Depression and the conflicts that arose out of it and so labour parties every where supported social democratic platforms and welfare states. As did too the conservative parties who were shorn mostly of their traditional aristocratic and elitist elements - who had been so discredited by WWII - and became liberal and bourgeoise. It was only really after the 1970s did this change significantly, but the lack of any significantly revolutionary activity in the west (1968 was something entirely different from what I'm thinking of here) except for a couple of relatively insignificant corners like Portugal and the acceptance of governmental social care coupled with large deficits and economic inefficiency led all parties in most western countries, especially Anglo-Saxon ones, towards a greater role for the free market (whatever that is). But even so, the British government after Thatcher or the American after Reagan had much, much more than intense and widespread involvement in the domestic sphere than before World War One, for instance.

*phew* that was long and probably unneccessary. But hey, the more you know.

Gully.

Ostrom

Was that not Halford Mackinder?

Chi chi

The difference (from Stalin) is that Nazi doesn't slaughter its own people. A major difference.

S-Murph

Chi chi wrote: »

The difference (from Stalin) is that Nazi doesn't slaughter its own people. A major difference.

In what sense?

What about the death/killing of disabled people? communists? trade unionists? their own soldiers?

Were these not their "own"?

Racially they were. Politically they were not. I see no difference between this and Stalin.

Was Stalin of the left? - eh, i wouldnt think so myself.

Chi chi

S-Murph wrote: »

In what sense?

What about the death/killing of disabled people? communists? trade unionists? their own soldiers?

Were these not their "own"?

Racially they were. Politically they were not. I see no difference between this and Stalin.

Was Stalin of the left? - eh, i wouldnt think so myself.

Then I didn't know. I see. In this sense, the two are very comparable. Though pieces winning "Stalin Prize For Literature" are still taught in school along with Marxism. That is the difference between the two - awareness.

Gully Foyle

Stalin killed off the remaining Communists in the Communist Party in the 30s. He was a self-glorifying thug with an overtly romanticized view of himself, like Che Guevara, but could not be said to have an ideology what so ever other than what was good for Stalin, was good for Russia.

Anyway in conventional Marxist theory there needed to be a "Capitalist" stage of development before Socialism could arrive. Thus the New Economic Policy; which was agreed upon by the vast majority of the (the very differing) members of the CPSU. Paranoia, the desire to control and the great depression contributed to real centrally planned phase of the communist "experiment". But most theoretical socialist would have adhored it; given that before 1917 most of them saw the state (quite rightly in most cases) as "the enemy".

And yes Stalin did all the things Hitler did as well (except the Holocaust). In this sense, the political spectrum is more of a horseshoe than a line.

After Stalin Communism tended to be the ideology of modernizing elites in the second/third world who wanted development NOW and saw in the centrally bureaucratic system the best way of achieving this. This is not as ridiculous as it seems today, given the ridiculous catch-up the Soviet economy made on the rest of the world from the 1920s to the 1950s, albeit a growth which led one way or other to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

krd

Chi chi wrote: »

The difference (from Stalin) is that Nazi doesn't slaughter its own people. A major difference.

you're very far from being correct.

The Nazis killed many of their own people. Even if you excluded the jews. Who were not the first group to murdered.

From 1933 up to the start of WWII they killed hundreds of thousands of their own people.

350,000 people who were in long term hospital care were gassed.

Thousands of children in care homes where murdered.

Thousands of homosexuals and political dissidents.

Any one who didn't quite "fit in" was murdered.

Deep Easterly

krd wrote: »

you're very far from being correct.

The Nazis killed many of their own people. Even if you excluded the jews. Who were not the first group to murdered.

From 1933 up to the start of WWII they killed hundreds of thousands of their own people.

350,000 people who were in long term hospital care were gassed.

Thousands of children in care homes where murdered.

Thousands of homosexuals and political dissidents.

Any one who didn't quite "fit in" was murdered.

Indeed, and in keeping with the whole Fascist ideology. Survival of the species, in which only the "strong" may be a part of.

turgon

FA Hayek argues in his book The Road to Serfdom that the only difference between Fascists and Socialists is that the former realize the ideal is unattainable. Or something like that, I dont have the exact quote nor the book at hand.

He also argues that socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Really, its a book everyone should read. Especcially Socialists. Its actually dedicated to them.

Deep Easterly

turgon wrote: »

FA Hayek argues in his book The Road to Serfdom that the only difference between Fascists and Socialists is that the former realize the ideal is unattainable. Or something like that, I dont have the exact quote nor the book at hand.

He also argues that socialism inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Really, its a book everyone should read. Especcially Socialists. Its actually dedicated to them.

Liberalists like Hayek are quick to align Socialism with Fascism, and often quote the worst traits of Fascism as proof that a Socialist society could never work. The oldest trick in the book.

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Liberalists like Hayek are quick to align Socialism with Fascism, and often quote the worst traits of Fascism as proof that a Socialist society could never work. The oldest trick in the book.

Both Fascists and Socialists seek to utilise the state in an attempt to homogenise people (albeit, mostly, to a different end), so it's not an enormous stretch to link the two.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

And yet, Hayek (as with Thatcher) was a strong supporter of the neo-facist Pinochet...curious the ironies ideology and history produce...The supposedly-fierce opponent of coercive authoritarianism having few objections to its use to further his preferred ends.

To quote Hayek in interview:

Hayek wrote:

Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America - is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government

Coercive repression and authoritarianism, apparently, is alright, as long as the ends are 'liberal'. A 'transitional period' is permissable, because (ironically, for the determined foe of the constructivists and their rational plans) that end justifies the means, and therefore should be instituted. And so, the Chilean dictatorship slaughtered its way on, to prevent the 'totalitarianism' Allende's socialism was thought to be, inevitably, producing.

Yours in lulz,

Kama

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry, but what is the actual point of your question? and why the inversion of the word "liberalist"?

I have read it, thrice in fact.

You?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

Soldie wrote: »

Both Fascists and Socialists seek to utilise the state in an attempt to homogenise people (albeit, mostly, to a different end), so it's not an enormous stretch to link the two.

Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other. Fascism is more closely linked to Capitalism in fact. Both ideologies are based on and rooted in Social Darwinism.

Fascism destroyed the idea of the individual; Capitalism destroyed the idea of the collective. Fascism, as practiced by Hitler and Mussolini saw the survival of the species as a end in itself, and an end that disregarded the individual cells that made up this species.

Capitalism on the other hand, aimed to destroy collective thought and collective actions and basically turn individuals on each other in to increase competition between them in the pursuit of basic resources and profit. Like Fascism however, it is an ideology that promotes the idea of "the survival of the fittest" simply because it is good for profit.

Like Fascism, Capitalism also promotes the idea that power should be held in the hands of the very few, while the very many are simple there to obey.

Lukes takes this much further in his 3 dimensions of power study:

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Radical-View-Steven-Lukes/dp/0333420926

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe time to start reading something else...?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.

Do you care to explain this instead of just making the claim, and then going off on a tangent about Capitalism?

To flesh out my previous statement, the end goal of Fascism is cultural and social homogeneity, whereas the end goal of the Socialism is economic homogeneity. When Hitler seized power he was quick to utilise the state to realise his goal - expulsion of alien peoples such as slavs, jews and gypsies, and the promotion of the the German "master race" and culture. Similarly, when Lenin seized power he was quick to utilise the state to realise his goal - nationalisation and the stamping out of private ownership of property.

There has been considerable overlap between the two ideologies, particularly during World War II. In the Soviet Union the communists advocated a selfless "everything for the motherland" policy, and a quick glance at the endless party propaganda furthers this - promoting national agencies such as the Soviet armed forces and the Soviet space program. The Soviets very much dictated how you should live your life. Similarly, in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the state expanded rapidly, and encroached on private enterprise - telling them what to produce, how much of it to produce, and so on.

Fascism is more closely linked to Capitalism in fact. Both ideologies are based on and rooted in Social Darwinism.

Capitalism destroyed the idea of the collective.

Capitalism on the other hand, aimed to destroy collective thought and collective actions and basically turn individuals on each other in to increase competition between them in the pursuit of basic resources and profit.

Capitalism also promotes the idea that power should be held in the hands of the very few, while the very many are simple there to obey.

Marxist drivel. Capitalism doesn't aim, promote or seek to do anything. You're conflating the actual definition of Capitalism with your warped opinion on what it is. Capitalism is the private ownership of wealth, that's all.

How can you possibly suggest that Capitalism destroys the collective? There are countless churches, sports clubs, societies, concerts, shows, festivals, etc. etc. ad infinitum that are all privately owned.

Kama

As expected: silence, and hence tacit approval for the 'right' kind of coercive authoritarianism, and straight back to the accusation that socialism inevitably leads to an authoritarian tyranny. The concept of a non-authoritarian, consensually-developed socialism is so unthinkable, that it must be a sekret plot by The Party to destroy all individuality. Best have a Purge, lads, its for the Greater (Liberal) Good...

When Hitler seized power he was quick to utilise the state[...]when Lenin seized power he was quick to utilise the state[...]when Pincochet sezied power he was quick to utilize the state...

...to pursue their authoritarian goals

Fixed it for you, in the interests of intellectual honesty...the problem with collapsing the authoritarian axis to conflate socialism with facism is a studied ignorance to the more facist trends in ones own ideology. Facism, like many 'Third Way' approaches, was necessarily an ideological motley, seek and ye shall find, and vice versa: ignore and you shall remain pleasantly ignorant.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

Soldie wrote: »

Marxist drivel. Capitalism doesn't aim, promote or seek to do anything. You're conflating the actual definition of Capitalism with your warped opinion on what it is. Capitalism is the private ownership of wealth, that's all.

How can you possibly suggest that Capitalism destroys the collective? There are countless churches, sports clubs, societies, concerts, shows, festivals, etc. etc. ad infinitum that are all privately owned.

Yawn...

The same argument I have heard a million times. Are you saying that churches are a capitalist concept. :pac::pac:. Did it ever occur to you the reason capitalism endorses all of the above is because they are simply ways for others to profit?

Yes, there are many examples of collective actions and groups in a capitalist society, but most if not all are based soley on the socialist ideals. Walk into any NGO and other social networks. Study them, then maybe you might soften your own warped, twisted and illogical principles.

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

The same argument I have heard a million times. Are you saying that churches are a capitalist concept. :pac::pac:. Did it ever occur to you the reason capitalism endorses all of the above is because they are simply ways for others to profit?

And there you go again. Capitalism doesn't "endorse" anything. It's merely a system whereby property is privately owned.

Yes, there are many examples of collective actions and groups in a capitalist society, but most if not all are based soley on the socialist ideals. Walk into any NGO and other social networks. Study them, then maybe you might soften your own warped, twisted and illogical principles.

Are you suggesting that football teams, bridge clubs, book clubs, religious groups, and the billions of other clubs and societies are based solely on socialist ideals? :rolleyes:

A free society allows freedom of association - there's nothing "socialist" about that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

Who are you directing that comment to? I for one have never given approval, tacit or otherwise, to "coercive authoritarianism."

Well, there was a tagteam Hayekian lovefest going on, while bellowing about the inherently authoritarian dangers of socialism and the inherently non-repressive nature of liberal capitalism, in context of which Hayek and Thatchers lovefest for Pinochets brutal repression of communities, churches, social groups, and so on, seems more than relevant. Historically, the acceptance of capitalism has not always been a tidy and pure libertarian consensual wet-dream, but involved significant levels of force and coercion, of which Chile is but a medium-recent example. September11 is't just 911, you know...

What is your opinion on Hayeks support for authoritarian liberal-constructivist regimes? Do you see this as contradictory in any way to his thought?


More basically, when someone tries to call someone else a 'facist', its usually a rhetorical ploy rather than an accurate and analytic statement. Opinions differ on the essential characteristics of facism; its problematic for sheep-and-goats Left-Right dichotomies since it was a 'Third Way' movement between the 'excesses' of capitalism and communism (which you determinedly conflate with socialism).

Frankly, the same nonsensical argumentative tactic gets thrown the other way; capitalists are all 'facist pigs', don't you know? It's unhelpful eitherway.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Well, there was a tagteam Hayekian lovefest going on, while bellowing about the inherently authoritarian dangers of socialism and the inherently non-repressive nature of liberal capitalism, in context of which Hayek and Thatchers lovefest for Pinochets brutal repression of communities, churches, social groups, and so on, seems more than relevant. Historically, the acceptance of capitalism has not always been a tidy and pure libertarian consensual wet-dream, but involved significant levels of force and coercion, of which Chile is but a medium-recent example. September11 isn't just 911, you know...

What is your opinion on Hayeks support for authoritarian liberal-constructivist regimes? Do you see this as contradictory in any way to his thought?


More basically, when someone tries to call someone else a 'facist', its usually a rhetorical ploy rather than an accurate and analytic statement. Opinions differ on the essential characteristics of facism; its problematic for sheep-and-goats Left-Right dichotomies since it was a 'Third Way' movement between the 'excesses' of capitalism and communism (which you determinedly conflate with socialism).

Frankly, the same nonsensical argumentative tactic gets thrown the other way; capitalists are all 'facist pigs', don't you know? It's unhelpful eitherway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Studied that particular nonsense for my thesis. Weber in his proddy ethic laid the foundations of bureourcratic oppression in capitalist society as we know it today. I seem to recall from reading that book that he advocated the idea that in order to make the working class work harder and more efficient they need to have the constant threat of being sacked hanging over them. Yet, for the civil service (a primarly middleclass occupation) to work effectively then the must be given job impunity and independance from authority.

Weber did not believe in a fair or equal society, yet his bible is the rockstone of capitalism today.

Perhaps you would like the read the book I linked earlier from Steven Lukes. Might open up your mind a bit.

Deep Easterly

Soldie wrote: »

Marxist drivel. Capitalism doesn't aim, promote or seek to do anything.

Think I will take this a bit further as contradiction abounds in your posts. You say that Capitalism does not promote or seek anything. Then you say it promotes the accumulation of private wealth? What's the story man?

I notice that rather than addressing the claim I made that capitalism, like facsism, believes that power should be held in the hands of the few, you just come out with the term "Marxist Drivel" by way of answer. Are you denying that power is unevenly distributed in capitalist society?

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A totally twisted post. The only rheroric I see going on here is between yourself and you kindred "Soldie". It was he who first started calling ideas "warped" and "drivel" . Get your facts straight before coming out with stupid and misleading claims like that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What, no counterclaims?, just little irrelevent soundbites? surprise surprise. . You coming across as someone who has very limited knowledge of political theory to be honest. You are just repeating the same nonsense and robotic views.

Me, I am just warming up. :P

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Think I will take this a bit further as contradiction abounds in your posts. You say that Capitalism does not promote or seek anything. Then you say it promotes the accumulation of private wealth? What's the story man?

Where did I say that?

I notice that rather than addressing the claim I made that capitalism, like facsism, believes that power should be held in the hands of the few, you just come out with the term "Marxist Drivel" by way of answer. Are you denying that power is unevenly distributed in capitalist society?

You're criticising me for not addressing your point? My initial claim was that Socialism and Fascism are not too far removed in that proponents of both seek to utilise the state in an attempt to homogenise people. Your response to this was that "Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.", and then you proceeded to go off on a tangent about how Capitalism and Fascism are similar. You didn't address my point at all. Also, if you read my subsequent replies you'll find that I gave examples of private clubs and societies, so your point about Capitalism "destroying" the collective is utter nonsense.

Soldie

Kama wrote: »

Fixed it for you, in the interests of intellectual honesty...the problem with collapsing the authoritarian axis to conflate socialism with facism is a studied ignorance to the more facist trends in ones own ideology. Facism, like many 'Third Way' approaches, was necessarily an ideological motley, seek and ye shall find, and vice versa: ignore and you shall remain pleasantly ignorant.

Kama wrote: »

Well, there was a tagteam Hayekian lovefest going on, while bellowing about the inherently authoritarian dangers of socialism [...]

I can only assume you're referring to me, and I wasn't conflating Fascism with Socialism. I explicitly said that the end goal is different (cultural homogeneity versus economic homogeneity). Despite this, history has shown that Fascist regimes (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, Ireland under de Valera :pac:, etc.) tend to encroach upon the economic sphere, too.

Kama

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

As I said, Comrade! The end justifies the means, and once we are over the hill of bloodshed we shall arrive in Paradise...just so long as that paradise is of the (constructivist) liberal form. For if the economic indicators increase, then coup and bloodshed is not just moral but necessary. Bloodshed is but a fungible input-factor, and the cost-benefit analysts tell us the necessary pain shall be more than outweighed by the pleasures of the future!

The entire thrust of Hayek's thought was oriented towards freedom. He understood that the nature of the Chilean reforms would eventually undermine authoritarianism of all kinds—as they did—and create a strong, free, prosperous, democratic country.

Better to say Hayek had a particular interpretation of freedom; freedom from democracy, if it gave the wrong answer.

A full analysis of the economic costs and benefits of Pincohets regime, again, is less clear-cut than you represent it as; foreign debt increased 300% from '74 to '88, inflation doubled from its Allende-era peak, and the critical copper industry remained nationalized, and a precedent was set that, I would have thought, should be worrying for liberals and other opponents of coercive statism: the combination of free market reform with authoritarian and repressive state social control, including but not limited to torture and the targeted assassination of political opponents, in context of the overthrow of a democratic government by an unelected junta.


But rather than attempt external refutation, I'll swerve immanent:

The argument made is that if authoritarian, coercive, freedom-restricting policy may produce a greater freedom in the future, then it is moral and right to sacrifice the now, the present, in pursuit of this goal, 'eventually undermining authoritarianism'; if the future is one of freedom, the present can be sacrificed in slavery and serfdom.

Which is a precisely a rational-constructivist project quite contradictory to the principles he generally seems to espouse; serfdom, here, is a valid measure, if it produces a future yeoman, the liberal 'New Man', who will be conditioned and tutored into his future 'freedoms'.

Which was my point, requiring no personal attacks or recriminations, sideways barbs at brian, complaints that 'teh socialistz r killing 2 so stfu' or any such argumentative distractions; is Hayeks support for Pinochet consistent with his avowed principles, specifically the opposition to constructivism?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

DF, for someone unwilling to answer a direct question, you're always quite eager to receive a reply. Your unwillingness to follow a point to its conclusion speaks volumes, as does your voluble support for the Pinochet regime.

As can be seen from your replies, you support constructivist planning and coercive statist action when it is in the service of your ideals, and so are no different in this from the authoritarians you claim to revile; yet it appears that what you revile is not the authoritariianism, or the bloodshed, but economic policies with which you disagree.

You argue above a rational-constructive instrumentalist utilitarianism, while claiming that symmetrical arguments by socialists are a sin against human freedom, autonomy, and the natural processes of self-organization. As elsewhere, your attitude is a 'heads I win tails you lose' asymmetry; what surprised me was such open ends-means justification.

You state 'a coup was inevitable', making it appear an endogenous affair, again quite contradictory to recorded history of economic warfare and blockade, that 'not a nut or bolt will reach Allende', to 'make the economy scream'. Chile was a 'rotten apple', and as ever, the powers that be lacked your faith that it would fail endogenously, and applied exogenous shocks.

Longstoryshort, it seems clear that you will willingly support authoritarian, coercive, constructivist regime, as did your intellectual parent Hayek, so long as they institute policies you approve of. I have seen nothing from you to dissuade me from this conclusion, so will accept it in lieu of a direct answer.

To answer your questions, for all that you have refused or evaded to answer mine:

I am not a supporter of Castros Cuba; Cuba is too politically repressive a state for me to support it. On balance I am a supporter of Chavez, though I would not be if he had assumed power under a military coup, as he first attempted to. Coherently enough, I support the legitimacy of regimes which come to power democratically, and tend not to support those which do not, all other things being equal. The 'other things' generally being the slaughter of citizens.

Your support appears based less on democracy than adherence to your ideology; there are 'good coups' which are capitalist, and 'bad coups' which are socialist, 'good liquidations' such as Operation Condor, and 'bad liquidations', such as the Soviets. Your principled objections to coercion and statism ring most hollow on this point.

Authoritarian capitalism rules ok, tbqfh. I believe I have my answer and am satisfied as to its veracity, though disappointed in its incoherence with your stated principles.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Deep Easterly

Soldie, rather than once again bringing up my "rant against capitalism" as you put it, could you actually answer the question I put to you?

I asked if you deny that capitalism, like fascism, endorses and insists on absolute power being placed in the hands of the few? and if so, could you explain why you think so.

Ta muchly.

Soldie

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Soldie, rather than once again bringing up my "rant against capitalism" as you put it, could you actually answer the question I put to you?

I asked if you deny that capitalism, like fascism, endorses and insists on absolute power being placed in the hands of the few? and if so, could you explain why you think so.

Several times now I've very cleary stated that Capitalism doesn't "endorse" anything. Just how many times do I need to repeat this? It is a system whereby property is privately owned -- not an omnipotent force that seeks to consolidate wealth.

Now that I've answered your question repeatedly, do you care to flesh out your initial statement at least once? You claimed that "Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.". Can you expand upon this instead of merely stating your opinion as though it is fact?

Deep Easterly

Soldie wrote: »

Several times now I've very cleary stated that Capitalism doesn't "endorse" anything. Just how many times do I need to repeat this? It is a system whereby property is privately owned -- not an omnipotent force that seeks to consolidate wealth.

Now that I've answered your question repeatedly, do you care to flesh out your initial statement at least once? You claimed that "Fascism and Socialism are ideologies that could not be more different from each other.". Can you expand upon this instead of merely stating your opinion as though it is fact?

Sorry, but you have not answered my question at all. I would say that your response is a 'nice try', but it isn't even that. Are you capable of answering a simple question? A bit like your ignorant in arms, Donegalfella in that regard..

But I will ask it in a way you will understand. Do you deny that capitalism, as a "system" :rolleyes: is not unlike fascism in that the reign's of power are in the hands of the very few, while the very many, the majority if you like, are simply there to obey, to consume and so forth.

Thanks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MG

Communism isn't all bad

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/this-week-in-pictures-1900801.html?start=3